Superficialiter
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Superficialiter
We still have this word with the usage I'm going to
describe in Portuguese today. Superficialiter means,
``very briefly, without getting into details, a brief
[vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended as the
literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the
actual concrete meaning.
fa
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
describe in Portuguese today. Superficialiter means,
``very briefly, without getting into details, a brief
[vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended as the
literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the
actual concrete meaning.
fa
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
It can have this meaning in Latin too, but not very well in the context
of influential people being summoned from round about to look at an
object of compelling public interest.
Whatever the idiomatic usage that is most familiar, I would be very
surprised if any good Portuguese dictionary did not give something like
"pertaining to the surface" as another definition of the word.
And it is of course only from their surfaces that monarchs are visibly
recognised by their subjects - I certainly wouldn't know Queen Elizabeth
II from a lump of clay by a mere shape under cerecloth, even if the best
of sculptors had a hand in it. I do however recognise her at once from a
brief and "superficial" glimpse of her profile on a tiny coin. I have
seen her image more often than some of the local abbots & others might
have seen Edward II, but then the stakes for certainty are rather lower
than if I had made my way across 30 or 40 miles on a special errand to
inspect my late sovereign.
Peter Stewart
We still have this word with the usage I'm going to
describe in Portuguese today. Superficialiter means,
``very briefly, without getting into details, a brief
[vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended as the
literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the
actual concrete meaning.
It can have this meaning in Latin too, but not very well in the context
of influential people being summoned from round about to look at an
object of compelling public interest.
Whatever the idiomatic usage that is most familiar, I would be very
surprised if any good Portuguese dictionary did not give something like
"pertaining to the surface" as another definition of the word.
And it is of course only from their surfaces that monarchs are visibly
recognised by their subjects - I certainly wouldn't know Queen Elizabeth
II from a lump of clay by a mere shape under cerecloth, even if the best
of sculptors had a hand in it. I do however recognise her at once from a
brief and "superficial" glimpse of her profile on a tiny coin. I have
seen her image more often than some of the local abbots & others might
have seen Edward II, but then the stakes for certainty are rather lower
than if I had made my way across 30 or 40 miles on a special errand to
inspect my late sovereign.
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: Superficialiter
Maybe it was someone who looked a bit like him and they were allowed a quick
look. The meaning Francisco Doria has pointed out seems to be the meaning
Ian Mortimer was usiing in his book.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:RDQ8d.16255$5O5.8500@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
look. The meaning Francisco Doria has pointed out seems to be the meaning
Ian Mortimer was usiing in his book.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:RDQ8d.16255$5O5.8500@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
We still have this word with the usage I'm going to
describe in Portuguese today. Superficialiter means,
``very briefly, without getting into details, a brief
[vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended as the
literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the
actual concrete meaning.
It can have this meaning in Latin too, but not very well in the context
of influential people being summoned from round about to look at an
object of compelling public interest.
Whatever the idiomatic usage that is most familiar, I would be very
surprised if any good Portuguese dictionary did not give something like
"pertaining to the surface" as another definition of the word.
And it is of course only from their surfaces that monarchs are visibly
recognised by their subjects - I certainly wouldn't know Queen Elizabeth
II from a lump of clay by a mere shape under cerecloth, even if the best
of sculptors had a hand in it. I do however recognise her at once from a
brief and "superficial" glimpse of her profile on a tiny coin. I have
seen her image more often than some of the local abbots & others might
have seen Edward II, but then the stakes for certainty are rather lower
than if I had made my way across 30 or 40 miles on a special errand to
inspect my late sovereign.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
First, it isn't in Portuguese but in Latin. Literal meanings in modern
Romance languages have come directly from Latin, because of the primary
definitions they carried in that language. Usage since the middle ages
has obviously cemented other constructions on may words.
Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the context
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
Beyond that, the same sentence went on to state that rumours were
already current about the cause of Edward II's death. Not long
afterwards the details were made explicit in another source, and this
gives a further clear reason to clarify the usecpected form of words
chosen by Murimuth.
If you intend to maintain the contrary, perhaps you could explain why
with a more convincing rationale than the idiom of today in Rio.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter,
The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical
one. One says, for instance, of an author that he is
`superficial' just to say that he never goes deeply
into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that
happens, there are some explicit modifiers to show
that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this
superficialiter. There is great chance that the
intended meaning is the metaphorical one.
First, it isn't in Portuguese but in Latin. Literal meanings in modern
Romance languages have come directly from Latin, because of the primary
definitions they carried in that language. Usage since the middle ages
has obviously cemented other constructions on may words.
Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the context
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
Beyond that, the same sentence went on to state that rumours were
already current about the cause of Edward II's death. Not long
afterwards the details were made explicit in another source, and this
gives a further clear reason to clarify the usecpected form of words
chosen by Murimuth.
If you intend to maintain the contrary, perhaps you could explain why
with a more convincing rationale than the idiom of today in Rio.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
Several letters on my keyboard are damaged - this should read "the
unexpected form of words....".
The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
Beyond that, the same sentence went on to state that rumours were
already current about the cause of Edward II's death. Not long
afterwards the details were made explicit in another source, and this
gives a further clear reason to clarify the usecpected form of words
chosen by Murimuth.
Several letters on my keyboard are damaged - this should read "the
unexpected form of words....".
The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing.
Peter Stewart
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Re: Superficialiter
Dear Peter,
The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical
one. One says, for instance, of an author that he is
`superficial' just to say that he never goes deeply
into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that
happens, there are some explicit modifiers to show
that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this
superficialiter. There is great chance that the
intended meaning is the metaphorical one.
Best, chico
--- Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> escreveu:
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical
one. One says, for instance, of an author that he is
`superficial' just to say that he never goes deeply
into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that
happens, there are some explicit modifiers to show
that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this
superficialiter. There is great chance that the
intended meaning is the metaphorical one.
Best, chico
--- Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> escreveu:
Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
We still have this word with the usage I'm going
to
describe in Portuguese today. Superficialiter
means,
``very briefly, without getting into details, a
brief
[vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended as the
literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the
actual concrete meaning.
It can have this meaning in Latin too, but not very
well in the context
of influential people being summoned from round
about to look at an
object of compelling public interest.
Whatever the idiomatic usage that is most familiar,
I would be very
surprised if any good Portuguese dictionary did not
give something like
"pertaining to the surface" as another definition of
the word.
And it is of course only from their surfaces that
monarchs are visibly
recognised by their subjects - I certainly wouldn't
know Queen Elizabeth
II from a lump of clay by a mere shape under
cerecloth, even if the best
of sculptors had a hand in it. I do however
recognise her at once from a
brief and "superficial" glimpse of her profile on a
tiny coin. I have
seen her image more often than some of the local
abbots & others might
have seen Edward II, but then the stakes for
certainty are rather lower
than if I had made my way across 30 or 40 miles on a
special errand to
inspect my late sovereign.
Peter Stewart
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
-
Pierre Aronax
Re: Superficialiter
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<RDQ8d.16255$5O5.8500@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
<...>
As you know, there is a king who met his destiny for that precise reason...
Pierre
<...>
And it is of course only from their surfaces that monarchs are visibly
recognised by their subjects - I certainly wouldn't know Queen Elizabeth
II from a lump of clay by a mere shape under cerecloth, even if the best
of sculptors had a hand in it. I do however recognise her at once from a
brief and "superficial" glimpse of her profile on a tiny coin.
...
As you know, there is a king who met his destiny for that precise reason...
Pierre
-
David Webb
Re: Superficialiter
"> Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the context
I think there is at least a possibility that Francisco Doria is right, but
when I read Ian Mortimer's book it occurred to me too that he probably got
the meaning of superficialiter wrong. But the use of the subjunctive
argument did not convince me at all. That they may view it briefly or that
they may have a surface look at it? What is the relevance of the
subjunctive?
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
I think there is at least a possibility that Francisco Doria is right, but
when I read Ian Mortimer's book it occurred to me too that he probably got
the meaning of superficialiter wrong. But the use of the subjunctive
argument did not convince me at all. That they may view it briefly or that
they may have a surface look at it? What is the relevance of the
subjunctive?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
David Webb wrote:
Rather than repeat myself, perhaps you could save us both trouble by
reading my previous posts and then pointing out what you don't
understand or how your interpretation differs.
It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily.
If they were, whoever had charge of the coprpse at the time, and I take
this to be the abbot of St Peter's, woud have brought suspicion if not
obloquy on his own head for no good reason since - as I understand the
matter - preventing inspection of the corpse's underside (the opposite
of its 'superficies') was all that could have been in anyone's interests.
Peter Stewart
"> Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the context
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
I think there is at least a possibility that Francisco Doria is right, but
when I read Ian Mortimer's book it occurred to me too that he probably got
the meaning of superficialiter wrong. But the use of the subjunctive
argument did not convince me at all. That they may view it briefly or that
they may have a surface look at it? What is the relevance of the
subjunctive?
Rather than repeat myself, perhaps you could save us both trouble by
reading my previous posts and then pointing out what you don't
understand or how your interpretation differs.
It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily.
If they were, whoever had charge of the coprpse at the time, and I take
this to be the abbot of St Peter's, woud have brought suspicion if not
obloquy on his own head for no good reason since - as I understand the
matter - preventing inspection of the corpse's underside (the opposite
of its 'superficies') was all that could have been in anyone's interests.
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: Superficialiter
Hang on. the underside is also the superficies unless an "internal"
examination is meant. The underside is still the surface of the corpse. The
question is why use an adverb at all. why say view the body superficialiter,
rather than say view the superficiem of the body?
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sTj9d.17660$5O5.5964@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
examination is meant. The underside is still the surface of the corpse. The
question is why use an adverb at all. why say view the body superficialiter,
rather than say view the superficiem of the body?
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sTj9d.17660$5O5.5964@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David Webb wrote:
"> Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the
context
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
I think there is at least a possibility that Francisco Doria is right,
but
when I read Ian Mortimer's book it occurred to me too that he probably
got
the meaning of superficialiter wrong. But the use of the subjunctive
argument did not convince me at all. That they may view it briefly or
that
they may have a surface look at it? What is the relevance of the
subjunctive?
Rather than repeat myself, perhaps you could save us both trouble by
reading my previous posts and then pointing out what you don't
understand or how your interpretation differs.
It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily.
If they were, whoever had charge of the coprpse at the time, and I take
this to be the abbot of St Peter's, woud have brought suspicion if not
obloquy on his own head for no good reason since - as I understand the
matter - preventing inspection of the corpse's underside (the opposite
of its 'superficies') was all that could have been in anyone's interests.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
David Webb wrote:
You are wrong - I've already gone over this. "Superficies" means
primarily the UPPER side, the TOP. What do you think "super" generally
means? The underside is a surface, of course, but would only be the
"superficies" of a corpse lying face down.
Now I hope you, like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse, will try to
stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of ignorant quibbles.
Peter Stewart
Hang on. the underside is also the superficies unless an "internal"
examination is meant. The underside is still the surface of the corpse. The
question is why use an adverb at all. why say view the body superficialiter,
rather than say view the superficiem of the body?
You are wrong - I've already gone over this. "Superficies" means
primarily the UPPER side, the TOP. What do you think "super" generally
means? The underside is a surface, of course, but would only be the
"superficies" of a corpse lying face down.
Now I hope you, like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse, will try to
stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of ignorant quibbles.
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sTj9d.17660$5O5.5964@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David Webb wrote:
"> Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the
context
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
I think there is at least a possibility that Francisco Doria is right,
but
when I read Ian Mortimer's book it occurred to me too that he probably
got
the meaning of superficialiter wrong. But the use of the subjunctive
argument did not convince me at all. That they may view it briefly or
that
they may have a surface look at it? What is the relevance of the
subjunctive?
Rather than repeat myself, perhaps you could save us both trouble by
reading my previous posts and then pointing out what you don't
understand or how your interpretation differs.
It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily.
If they were, whoever had charge of the coprpse at the time, and I take
this to be the abbot of St Peter's, woud have brought suspicion if not
obloquy on his own head for no good reason since - as I understand the
matter - preventing inspection of the corpse's underside (the opposite
of its 'superficies') was all that could have been in anyone's interests.
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: Superficialiter
What do you think "sur" in the word "surface" means? I notice you could not
answer why an adverb was used - an adverb should be used to highlight the
*way* in which they looked at the body. I am open to alternative
explanations, but you have proffered none.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Gjn9d.17842$5O5.12704@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
answer why an adverb was used - an adverb should be used to highlight the
*way* in which they looked at the body. I am open to alternative
explanations, but you have proffered none.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Gjn9d.17842$5O5.12704@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David Webb wrote:
Hang on. the underside is also the superficies unless an "internal"
examination is meant. The underside is still the surface of the corpse.
The
question is why use an adverb at all. why say view the body
superficialiter,
rather than say view the superficiem of the body?
You are wrong - I've already gone over this. "Superficies" means
primarily the UPPER side, the TOP. What do you think "super" generally
means? The underside is a surface, of course, but would only be the
"superficies" of a corpse lying face down.
Now I hope you, like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse, will try to
stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of ignorant quibbles.
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sTj9d.17660$5O5.5964@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David Webb wrote:
"> Secondly, I have already taken some trouble to explain, from the
context
and particularly the choice of subjunctive rather than indicative
verbs,
that it is virually inadmissable to read your meaning into
'superficialiter' in this passage.
I think there is at least a possibility that Francisco Doria is right,
but
when I read Ian Mortimer's book it occurred to me too that he probably
got
the meaning of superficialiter wrong. But the use of the subjunctive
argument did not convince me at all. That they may view it briefly or
that
they may have a surface look at it? What is the relevance of the
subjunctive?
Rather than repeat myself, perhaps you could save us both trouble by
reading my previous posts and then pointing out what you don't
understand or how your interpretation differs.
It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily.
If they were, whoever had charge of the coprpse at the time, and I take
this to be the abbot of St Peter's, woud have brought suspicion if not
obloquy on his own head for no good reason since - as I understand the
matter - preventing inspection of the corpse's underside (the opposite
of its 'superficies') was all that could have been in anyone's
interests.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
David Webb wrote:
The outside of an object - this word used in English allows for bottom
surfaces, as you should know very well. "Superficies" in Latin does not.
As I have said repeatedly, Murimuth DOES NOT tell us that anyone looked
at Edward II's body, in any manner whatsoever. That is my point, which
you seemingly intend to go on misunderstanding, about his choice of
subjunctive rather than indicative verbs. He tells us that people were
summoned and how they were permitted to look at the corpse, implying of
course that they did so. I contend that it is absurd to suppose they
were duped into attending, and lending their credibility to the
announcement of the former king's death, without being given a chance to
recognise him.
Murimuth used an adverb to modify the sense regarding the permitted
inspection before immediately alluding to the rumours of murder. We know
independently that the burden of this rumour was entirely to do with the
backside and not the upper side of the deceased.
Your persistence in questioning these perfectly cogent points without
sensibly addressing them is dreary in the extreme.
Peter Stewart
What do you think "sur" in the word "surface" means?
The outside of an object - this word used in English allows for bottom
surfaces, as you should know very well. "Superficies" in Latin does not.
I notice you could not
answer why an adverb was used - an adverb should be used to highlight the
*way* in which they looked at the body. I am open to alternative
explanations, but you have proffered none.
As I have said repeatedly, Murimuth DOES NOT tell us that anyone looked
at Edward II's body, in any manner whatsoever. That is my point, which
you seemingly intend to go on misunderstanding, about his choice of
subjunctive rather than indicative verbs. He tells us that people were
summoned and how they were permitted to look at the corpse, implying of
course that they did so. I contend that it is absurd to suppose they
were duped into attending, and lending their credibility to the
announcement of the former king's death, without being given a chance to
recognise him.
Murimuth used an adverb to modify the sense regarding the permitted
inspection before immediately alluding to the rumours of murder. We know
independently that the burden of this rumour was entirely to do with the
backside and not the upper side of the deceased.
Your persistence in questioning these perfectly cogent points without
sensibly addressing them is dreary in the extreme.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Superficialiter
HEARSAY from almost 700 years ago as to who may have viewed Edward II's
body and what they saw is SUPREMELY RIDICULOUS when it comes to
assigning any sort of Historical Weight and Veracity.
So this has been a Fools' Argument from the beginning -- and continues
to be such.
DSH
body and what they saw is SUPREMELY RIDICULOUS when it comes to
assigning any sort of Historical Weight and Veracity.
So this has been a Fools' Argument from the beginning -- and continues
to be such.
DSH
-
David Webb
Re: Superficialiter
As I have said repeatedly, Murimuth DOES NOT tell us that anyone looked
at Edward II's body, in any manner whatsoever. That is my point, which
you seemingly intend to go on misunderstanding, about his choice of
subjunctive rather than indicative verbs. He tells us that people were
summoned and how they were permitted to look at the corpse, implying of
course that they did so. I contend that it is absurd to suppose they
were duped into attending, and lending their credibility to the
announcement of the former king's death, without being given a chance to
recognise him.
yes, I have finally seen your point. He made the body available that they
might view it - this is the subjunctive - doesn't mean they did view it.
Murimuth used an adverb to modify the sense regarding the permitted
inspection before immediately alluding to the rumours of murder. We know
independently that the burden of this rumour was entirely to do with the
backside and not the upper side of the deceased.
Your persistence in questioning these perfectly cogent points without
sensibly addressing them is dreary in the extreme.
Peter Stewart
I think the argument about Ed II cannot be resolved. It is 60% likely he was
smothered in the castle, 35% likely that Ian mortimer is right, and 5%
likely he died on a red hotpoker.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
What a bizarre statement - come off it, Spencer. This sounds like
wounded pride thrashing about in search of a target rather than
commonsense. You and everyone else here must go by medieval hearsay for
most purposes of studying genealogy in the period.
The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago. Ian Mortim er and David Webb have
every right to put forward conclusions on this basis, as have others to
take a different view. The objective is to amplify our understanding of
the past: the alternative is to confine ourselves to the few original
diplomatic documents that may survive, and usually the witnesses to
these and even the principals were going by mere hearsay about the
contents anyway, unable to read for themselves.
Peter Stewart
HEARSAY from almost 700 years ago as to who may have viewed Edward II's
body and what they saw is SUPREMELY RIDICULOUS when it comes to
assigning any sort of Historical Weight and Veracity.
So this has been a Fools' Argument from the beginning -- and continues
to be such.
What a bizarre statement - come off it, Spencer. This sounds like
wounded pride thrashing about in search of a target rather than
commonsense. You and everyone else here must go by medieval hearsay for
most purposes of studying genealogy in the period.
The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago. Ian Mortim er and David Webb have
every right to put forward conclusions on this basis, as have others to
take a different view. The objective is to amplify our understanding of
the past: the alternative is to confine ourselves to the few original
diplomatic documents that may survive, and usually the witnesses to
these and even the principals were going by mere hearsay about the
contents anyway, unable to read for themselves.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
David Webb wrote:
<snip>
I wouldn't quantify likelihood, but the argument about "superficialiter"
need not matter very much if not for Ian Mortimer's treatment of the
Fieschi letter, and some other debatable considerations, that he made an
opening to interpret Murimuth as suggesting Edward II might not have
been plainly seen to be dead.
He really should have analysed the Fieschi letter in the light of 'Vita
Haroldi' and other possible sources for the story related in it.
Despite the preposterous remarks to SGM earlier about "hearsay", textual
examination of this kind is a vital part of the historian's work, and if
this had not been done on an industrial scale before now we could not
know enough about the period to guard against basic misinformation from
some sources (including angled forst-hand accounts) in the first place.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
I think the argument about Ed II cannot be resolved. It is 60% likely he was
smothered in the castle, 35% likely that Ian mortimer is right, and 5%
likely he died on a red hotpoker.
I wouldn't quantify likelihood, but the argument about "superficialiter"
need not matter very much if not for Ian Mortimer's treatment of the
Fieschi letter, and some other debatable considerations, that he made an
opening to interpret Murimuth as suggesting Edward II might not have
been plainly seen to be dead.
He really should have analysed the Fieschi letter in the light of 'Vita
Haroldi' and other possible sources for the story related in it.
Despite the preposterous remarks to SGM earlier about "hearsay", textual
examination of this kind is a vital part of the historian's work, and if
this had not been done on an industrial scale before now we could not
know enough about the period to guard against basic misinformation from
some sources (including angled forst-hand accounts) in the first place.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
Before this post gets dredged back up, I should point out that I meant
to type "first-hand accounts".
Peter Stewart
<snip>
Despite the preposterous remarks to SGM earlier about "hearsay", textual
examination of this kind is a vital part of the historian's work, and if
this had not been done on an industrial scale before now we could not
know enough about the period to guard against basic misinformation from
some sources (including angled forst-hand accounts) in the first place.
Before this post gets dredged back up, I should point out that I meant
to type "first-hand accounts".
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: Superficialiter
He really should have analysed the Fieschi letter in the light of 'Vita
Haroldi' and other possible sources for the story related in it.
Despite the preposterous remarks to SGM earlier about "hearsay", textual
examination of this kind is a vital part of the historian's work, and if
this had not been done on an industrial scale before now we could not
know enough about the period to guard against basic misinformation from
some sources (including angled forst-hand accounts) in the first place.
Peter Stewart
What about Ian Mortimer's arguing that the content of the letter contained
things now known to be true, but not known to the earliest chronicleers, eg
Edward II's attempted flight to Ireland in a boat from Chepstow?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
David Webb wrote:
But how can Mortimer establish that such things were unknown to all the
various people who might have had motive and opportunity to falsify the
letter or - if you believe in the silent complicity of John XXII, though
I can't - to play on Fieschi's own credulity?
Peter Stewart
He really should have analysed the Fieschi letter in the light of 'Vita
Haroldi' and other possible sources for the story related in it.
Despite the preposterous remarks to SGM earlier about "hearsay", textual
examination of this kind is a vital part of the historian's work, and if
this had not been done on an industrial scale before now we could not
know enough about the period to guard against basic misinformation from
some sources (including angled forst-hand accounts) in the first place.
Peter Stewart
What about Ian Mortimer's arguing that the content of the letter contained
things now known to be true, but not known to the earliest chronicleers, eg
Edward II's attempted flight to Ireland in a boat from Chepstow?
But how can Mortimer establish that such things were unknown to all the
various people who might have had motive and opportunity to falsify the
letter or - if you believe in the silent complicity of John XXII, though
I can't - to play on Fieschi's own credulity?
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Superficialiter
Surface examination of a corpse is inherently a superficial examination.
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII:
Dr. Francisco Antonio Doria made the following eminently reasonable
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII:
Dr. Francisco Antonio Doria made the following eminently reasonable
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Superficialiter
Surface examination of a corpse is inherently a superficial examination.
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII:
Dr. Francisco Antonio Doria made the following eminently reasonable
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle, Balderdash and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII:
Dr. Francisco Antonio Doria made the following eminently reasonable
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle, Balderdash and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Comments interspersed:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Quite so - that is my point, that "superficialiter" in this context
refers to the surface of the corpse examined and not to the brevity of
the examination. Thank you for restating so clearly what you proceed to
contradict so murkily.
Exactly my point, than you again - this is why the abbot of St Peter's
(or possibly someone else) expllicitly made known he permitted the local
notables to conduct an examination limited to the purpose of verifying
that Edward II was dead, and that they were implicitly not to interfere
with his corpse to check on rumours already circulating about the manner
of his demise.
Quite so - no-one has denied it.
The rest of Spencer's noisome attempt at an intellectual equivalent of
gargling is unworthy of response. He doesn't seem to know what to think,
much less how to make out a rational case against mine.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Surface examination of a corpse is inherently a superficial examination.
Quite so - that is my point, that "superficialiter" in this context
refers to the surface of the corpse examined and not to the brevity of
the examination. Thank you for restating so clearly what you proceed to
contradict so murkily.
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Exactly my point, than you again - this is why the abbot of St Peter's
(or possibly someone else) expllicitly made known he permitted the local
notables to conduct an examination limited to the purpose of verifying
that Edward II was dead, and that they were implicitly not to interfere
with his corpse to check on rumours already circulating about the manner
of his demise.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII:
Quite so - no-one has denied it.
The rest of Spencer's noisome attempt at an intellectual equivalent of
gargling is unworthy of response. He doesn't seem to know what to think,
much less how to make out a rational case against mine.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
I think the post below is a duplicate of one to which I responded
earlier - but in case it isn't, and Spencer's obtuseness is amenable to
simple logic:
"Superficies" in Latin means the upper side, top or surface.
"Superficialis" is the adjective from this word and "superficialiter" is
the adverb. This means literally "upper-sidedly".
I have argued that there was a clear interest in showing off Edward II's
corpse but in permitting it to be viewed only "upper-sidedly".
The alternative reading is that people were brought in to see it
"cursorily", "briefly", or "superficially" as we might understand the
term in modern usage.
How this could serve anyone's interests has not been explained.
If Edward II was dead, with no visible signs of murder on his face and
front, there could be no problem in having people gaze at his
undisturbed recumbent form, up close and for hours on end.
If however he wasn't dead, it is hard to see why anyone would risk
exposure of this fact by allowing even the briefest glimpse to people
with some knowledge of the king's features and some credibility with the
people of England.
It is equally hard to see what purpose could be served by displaying a
stiff shape under cerecloth, to anyone at all under any conditions.
Spencer is free & welcome to make an opposite case, but why he persists
in posting drivel on the subject without attempting this is beyond me.
Does he thik he looks more intelligent and believable the longer he
draws attention to himself? O dear me....
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
earlier - but in case it isn't, and Spencer's obtuseness is amenable to
simple logic:
"Superficies" in Latin means the upper side, top or surface.
"Superficialis" is the adjective from this word and "superficialiter" is
the adverb. This means literally "upper-sidedly".
I have argued that there was a clear interest in showing off Edward II's
corpse but in permitting it to be viewed only "upper-sidedly".
The alternative reading is that people were brought in to see it
"cursorily", "briefly", or "superficially" as we might understand the
term in modern usage.
How this could serve anyone's interests has not been explained.
If Edward II was dead, with no visible signs of murder on his face and
front, there could be no problem in having people gaze at his
undisturbed recumbent form, up close and for hours on end.
If however he wasn't dead, it is hard to see why anyone would risk
exposure of this fact by allowing even the briefest glimpse to people
with some knowledge of the king's features and some credibility with the
people of England.
It is equally hard to see what purpose could be served by displaying a
stiff shape under cerecloth, to anyone at all under any conditions.
Spencer is free & welcome to make an opposite case, but why he persists
in posting drivel on the subject without attempting this is beyond me.
Does he thik he looks more intelligent and believable the longer he
draws attention to himself? O dear me....
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Surface examination of a corpse is inherently a superficial examination.
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII:
Dr. Francisco Antonio Doria made the following eminently reasonable
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle, Balderdash and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
I was too brief, or superficial if you like, here - I should have
written "If however he wasn't dead, it is hard to see why anyone would
risk exposure of this fact by allowing even the briefest glimpse of a
substitute corpse or dummy to people with some knowledge of the king's
features..."
Peter Stewart
<snip>
If Edward II was dead, with no visible signs of murder on his face and
front, there could be no problem in having people gaze at his
undisturbed recumbent form, up close and for hours on end.
If however he wasn't dead, it is hard to see why anyone would risk
exposure of this fact by allowing even the briefest glimpse to people
with some knowledge of the king's features and some credibility with the
people of England.
I was too brief, or superficial if you like, here - I should have
written "If however he wasn't dead, it is hard to see why anyone would
risk exposure of this fact by allowing even the briefest glimpse of a
substitute corpse or dummy to people with some knowledge of the king's
features..."
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Superficialiter
Dr. Francisco Antonio Doria made the following eminently reasonable
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
Surface examination of a corpse is inherently a superficial examination.
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII.
Ergo, their examination was SUPERFICIAL.
Case Closed.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
remarks:
DSH
----------------
"We still have this word with the usage I'm going to describe in
Portuguese today. Superficialiter means, ``very briefly, without
getting into details, a brief [vision].'' It's ***not*** to be intended
as the literal meaning, ``in the surface,'' say, in the actual concrete
meaning.
fa
And:
"The current meaning in Portuguese is the metaphorical one. One says,
for instance, of an author that he is `superficial' just to say that he
never goes deeply into his subject. `Superficialmente' means, briefly,
after a bird's eye view.
The literal meaning is *almost never* used. When that happens, there
are some explicit modifiers to show that we intend it.
So, I would deal very carefully with this superficialiter. There is
great chance that the intended meaning is the metaphorical one."
fa
----------------
_Au contraire_, Peter Stewart posted:
"The repetition of "clear" and "clarify" is from my sloppy thinking
rather than typing."
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Oh yes, we have seen a Great Deal of Sloppy Thinking from Peter.
Here is a salient example of Peter's Worst Sort of "Coulda, Shoulda,
Woulda Pseudo-History":
"It makes no sense to me that important people would be summoned to
verify the death of Edward II and then not be given the opportunity to
do so satisfactorily."
And:
"He tells us that people were summoned and how they were permitted to
look at the corpse, implying of course that they did so. I contend
that it is absurd to suppose they were duped into attending, and lending
their credibility to the announcement of the former king's death,
without being given a chance to recognise him."
Peter Stewart
Twaddle and Codswallop.
Peter trots out the thoroughly discredited Argument From Incredulity.
"It makes no sense to me" and "I contend it is absurd" are NOT either
Historical or Genealogical Arguments and they carry ZIP POINT ZERO
WEIGHT in any sort of Reasoned Argument.
Bent Noodles may be unable to fathom that self-evident truth.
A group of notables just doesn't start turning over the alleged corpse
of a monarch as it lays on a bier and spreading the arse cheeks to see
if there is a wound or severe burns there.
Peter's Bent Noodle is betraying him again.
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
Perhaps Peter has his own way of recognizing dead people by their ARSES
rather than their FACES, but this is not the usual practice of folks who
do NOT have Bent Noodles.
Surface examination of a corpse is inherently a superficial examination.
That's why today, in cases of questionable death, we have AUTOPSIES.
If Edward II was indeed done in with a red-hot poker shoved up his
fundament a superficial examination of the body by a gaggle of convened,
inexpert notables would not have discovered it.
Nor would they be able to tell if Edward II was smothered or died from
being cooped up and forced to live in his own filth, as was allegedly so
in the sad case of the young Louis XVII.
Ergo, their examination was SUPERFICIAL.
Case Closed.
'Nuff Said.
-------------------
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Superficialiter
"Now I hope you, [David Webb] like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse,
will try to stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of
ignorant quibbles."
Peter Stewart
And:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Peter Stewart
---------------
Ignorant, Errant Twaddle.
No wonder this poor fellow could not complete his degee at Oxford.
He doesn't even know the differences between HEARSAY and HISTORY.
'Nuff Said.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
will try to stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of
ignorant quibbles."
Peter Stewart
And:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Peter Stewart
---------------
Ignorant, Errant Twaddle.
No wonder this poor fellow could not complete his degee at Oxford.
He doesn't even know the differences between HEARSAY and HISTORY.
'Nuff Said.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Superficialiter
Recte:
"Now I hope you, [David Webb] like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse,
will try to stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of
ignorant quibbles."
Peter Stewart
And:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Peter Stewart
---------------
Ignorant, Errant Twaddle.
No wonder this poor fellow could not complete his basic, fundamental,
bachelor's degree at Oxford.
He doesn't even know the differences between HEARSAY and HISTORY.
'Nuff Said.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Now I hope you, [David Webb] like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse,
will try to stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of
ignorant quibbles."
Peter Stewart
And:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Peter Stewart
---------------
Ignorant, Errant Twaddle.
No wonder this poor fellow could not complete his basic, fundamental,
bachelor's degree at Oxford.
He doesn't even know the differences between HEARSAY and HISTORY.
'Nuff Said.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Gjest
Re: Superficialiter
In a message dated 10/12/2004 2:40:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Sorry Hines, but I must agree with this thought to a great extent. I think
that history, even written history, is a contrived legacy. The old saying
that the winners of wars write the history indicates to me that the actual
facts of what happened, even two hundred years past, can never be actually KNOWN
by us. We must accept the statements of the person who has passed down the
history, either oral or written. I think that much of the history of 700 or
more years ago must be taken with a grain of salt.
I can only KNOW what I have seen (most of the time), heard (some of the
time), or felt (occasionally). All else is hearsay.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Sorry Hines, but I must agree with this thought to a great extent. I think
that history, even written history, is a contrived legacy. The old saying
that the winners of wars write the history indicates to me that the actual
facts of what happened, even two hundred years past, can never be actually KNOWN
by us. We must accept the statements of the person who has passed down the
history, either oral or written. I think that much of the history of 700 or
more years ago must be taken with a grain of salt.
I can only KNOW what I have seen (most of the time), heard (some of the
time), or felt (occasionally). All else is hearsay.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
Is he STILL at this? - he must read messages so selectively & vaguely
that he can't apply his brains to the simplest points in them:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
<snip>
IF the king had been killed in the way we are told he was, a brief and
superficial examination of his bottom would have revealed this.
Murimuth - who was a notably unimaginative, unmetaphorical writer by the
way - TELLS US IN THE SAME SENTENCE that there were rumours the king had
been murdered.
A procession of abbots, priors, knights and burgesses could quite easily
have taken discovery of this matter into their own hands unless definite
arrnagements were put in place to prevent any chance of this.
And that is _precisely_, _literally_, what Murmiuth tells us.
Spencer, you are stuck in the mud of your own incomprehension.
"Argument from incredulity" indeed - on your side we have only a lack of
argument from extreme credulity, something we have plainly seen recently
in your other fevered outpourings.
Peter Stewart
that he can't apply his brains to the simplest points in them:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
<snip>
The gaggle of notables recognize Edward II from his FACE and see he is
DEAD -- they don't need to turn him over and look at his arse to
recognize him. Further, they are not able to say precisely how he died.
IF the king had been killed in the way we are told he was, a brief and
superficial examination of his bottom would have revealed this.
Murimuth - who was a notably unimaginative, unmetaphorical writer by the
way - TELLS US IN THE SAME SENTENCE that there were rumours the king had
been murdered.
A procession of abbots, priors, knights and burgesses could quite easily
have taken discovery of this matter into their own hands unless definite
arrnagements were put in place to prevent any chance of this.
And that is _precisely_, _literally_, what Murmiuth tells us.
Spencer, you are stuck in the mud of your own incomprehension.
"Argument from incredulity" indeed - on your side we have only a lack of
argument from extreme credulity, something we have plainly seen recently
in your other fevered outpourings.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Superficialiter
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Hearsay" is report, rumour, gossip.
Most contemporary history written by medieval authors was based
on....report, rumour, gossip.
Apart from that we have mainly diplomatic and personal charters, and a
few administrative records, to get at the truth about people from 700
years ago.
"History" to Spencer is evidently whatever he wishes to believe, and
whatever he is using or abusing at any moment in trying vainly to beat
up on someone else.
Peter Stewart
"Now I hope you, [David Webb] like Chico on his erroneous hobby-horse,
will try to stop yourself from scraping out this empty barrel of
ignorant quibbles."
Peter Stewart
And:
"The deposit of hearsay in narrative is virtually all we have about any
event or person from 700 years ago."
Peter Stewart
---------------
Ignorant, Errant Twaddle.
No wonder this poor fellow could not complete his degee at Oxford.
He doesn't even know the differences between HEARSAY and HISTORY.
"Hearsay" is report, rumour, gossip.
Most contemporary history written by medieval authors was based
on....report, rumour, gossip.
Apart from that we have mainly diplomatic and personal charters, and a
few administrative records, to get at the truth about people from 700
years ago.
"History" to Spencer is evidently whatever he wishes to believe, and
whatever he is using or abusing at any moment in trying vainly to beat
up on someone else.
Peter Stewart