the quatrains
ozzy...@hotmail.com
Peter Lemesurier says...
>
>On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:15:47 GMT, ozzy...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>>from what I read in the epistle to Henry(english), it
says he "could have put
>>them in order connecting one to another".
>
>I don't recollect that bit. Could we have the exact words,
please --
>either in French or in English -- and if possible some
indication as
>to where?
>
ok, it doesnt say in order(I belive that was jeans own
comment which you repled to it being his gloss),but it does
say joined these quatrains one to the other.
It doesnt say either way if they are or are not in order.
Removing his quill from the paper, what would Nostradamus
have written to "join" the quatrains?
numbers, letters, some kind of dating system, zodiac signs,
some kind of system.
>
Not excatly. What he said was that he could have dated each
of them (and hemnce put them in order).
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM73
73. que si ie voulais à vn chacun quatrain mettre le
dénombrement du temps, se pourrait faire: mais à tous ne
serait aggreable, ne moins les interpréter iusques à ce
Sire, que vostre Molesté m'aye octroyé ample puissance pour
ce faire, pour ne donner cause aux calomniateurs de me
mordre.
"so much that, if I wanted it, I could date each of
quatrains: but the thing would not be pleasant to all; or
to specify their sense, but it would be necessary that your
Majesty first gave me the whole authorization, in order not
to give to my slanderers the opportunity to tear me apart.
"
and then went on to say that he could have joined them
together one after the other but didn't:
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM113
113. Que toutes ces figures sont iustement adaptées par les
diurnes lettres aux choses célestes visibles, c'est à
sçavoir, par Saturne, Iupiter, & Mars, & les autres
conioincts, comme plus a plain par aucuns quadrins l'on
pourra voir. Ie eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus
profondement, & adapté les vns auecques les autres.
All these things are adapted exactly to the divine
characters and the visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and
Mars, and others in conjunction, as one could have seen it
more amply in some quatrains. I could have done more and
could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
114. Mais voyant ô Serenissime Roy, que quelqu'vns de la
sensure trouueront difficulté, qui sera cause de retirer ma
plume à mon repos nocturne:
But seeing, oh most serene monarch, that censorship could
cause me difficulties, I withdrew my quill from the paper
in order to dedicate myself to my nocturnal rest:
>>
>>I have a question about this, does it say anywhere that
the quatrains are "NOT"
>>in order?
>
>He says he had 'put them together rather obscurely'. Make
what you
>will of that!
>
>>
>>If it doesnt say that, why squabble?
>
>Because Certain People here are rather prone to quote as
>'Nostradamus's words' what are in fact their own words,
based merely
>on what they understand Nostradamus to have *meant*. So
convinced are
>they that they are right that they don't even bother to
check whether
>he actually said them or not!
>
he wrote it, not said it, or did he say it?
I got it, it does not read that they are in order, it also
does not read that they are not in order.
>--
>
>Peter
>
matthew winston
Peter Lemesurier
>I got it, it does not read that they are in order, it also
>does not read that they are not in order.
Something like that!
--
Peter
Rino
<ozzy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L20d7.5817$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <8897ntor67pgvrt6h...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Lemesurier says...
> >
> >On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:15:47 GMT, ozzy...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> >>from what I read in the epistle to Henry(english), it
> says he "could have put
> >>them in order connecting one to another".
> >
> >I don't recollect that bit. Could we have the exact words,
> please --
> >either in French or in English -- and if possible some
> indication as
> >to where?
> >
> ok, it doesnt say in order(I belive that was jeans own
> comment which you repled to it being his gloss),but it does
> say joined these quatrains one to the other.
>
> It doesnt say either way if they are or are not in order.
Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way that it
gives seven major events of the world. He did not wrote them for any one of
his time. He did for us today and specially for the ones at the time of his
five hundred birthday (2003). The epistle is not any better than the Qs
because you will not find a chronological order in it either.
The quatrains should be holding together like the links of a chain. Do not
permit yourself to jump ahead to the next one until you know about the one
in hand. This way of doing was first shown by Michel Dufresne and Jean
Guernon. By them, " half the stories are shown", this is from Nostradamus.
Rino
Mark
news:t8ad7.31006$mZ.11...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
> quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way that
it
> gives seven major events of the world.
Please... enlighten me as to how you arrived at THAT conclusion.
> This way of doing was first shown by Michel Dufresne and Jean
> Guernon. By them, " half the stories are shown", this is from Nostradamus.
Ah... so Nosty used the proven technique of taking (certain) words, knowing
BEFOREHAND what the words would EVENTUALLY mean through etymological
evolution, and incorporated them into the Quatrains?
... and Nosty also DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words... and KNEW that ONLY
Michel Dufresne and Jean would one day be able assign the CORRECT meaning to
them... thereby revealing the hidden messages of his original texts!?!?!?
Ah.... NOW I understand!
Yes, yes... intuitively, that certainly sounds correct...
;)
Peter Lemesurier
>This way of doing was first shown by Michel Dufresne and Jean
>Guernon. By them, " half the stories are shown", this is from Nostradamus.
Ah -- by inventing their own entirely new meanings for various of his
words, you mean?
Sure, sure... Why didn't *I* think of that?! ;)
Where ignorance is bliss...
--
Humpty Dumpty
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean." (courtesy
of Lewis Carroll)
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
He wrote he could have put them in order if he had wanted to, but it
would have made problems for him. Now if that means they are possibly in
order for you, well it's your take, not mine.
Ozzy, remember the part that Peter finds isn't important here?
No this one, "I could have done more and could have joined these
quatrains one to the other. " But the other one: "But seeing, oh most
serene monarch, that censorship could cause me difficulties, I withdrew
my quill from the paper in order to dedicate myself to my nocturnal
rest: ". So that the first one, remains occulted, and the statement
about the quatrains not being in order, [remains] ambiguous, for him.
But I don't understand his motives though. His books are certainly
taking each quatrain in its individuality regardless of timing. (I
certainly never advised anyone not to check them out BTW even if
yesterday we talked about two other exegetes' books. They are
interesting.) But it is this attitude that is is weird... Unless... hum,
maybe he is working on Alef's idea for a future book? ;-)
J.
Jean Guernon
Rino a écrit :
Thanks Rino. :-)
Not sure (if I remember) where this is from, but what I am sure of, is
that you will see Peter jump on this like the poor people on a crumb of
bread. ;-)
J.
>
> >[snip]
Jean Guernon
Mark a écrit :
>
> "Rino" <mi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:t8ad7.31006$mZ.11...@weber.videotron.net...
> >
> > Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
> > quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way that
> it
> > gives seven major events of the world.
>
> Please... enlighten me as to how you arrived at THAT conclusion.
>
> > This way of doing was first shown by Michel Dufresne and Jean
> > Guernon. By them, " half the stories are shown", this is from Nostradamus.
>
> Ah... so Nosty used the proven technique of taking (certain) words, knowing
> BEFOREHAND what the words would EVENTUALLY mean through etymological
> evolution, and incorporated them into the Quatrains?
Excuse me Mark, where do you read that in there?
We take the words for what tthey meant to Nostradamus so far.
Very weird for me to witness reactions like that all the time.
>
> ... and Nosty also DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words... and KNEW that ONLY
> Michel Dufresne and Jean would one day be able assign the CORRECT meaning to
> them... thereby revealing the hidden messages of his original texts!?!?!?
What are you talking about again? This is Peter that pretend that
Nsotradamus meant he could make an error when he wrote he could NOT make
an error about the prophetic work (except an unlikely case of
distraction). It seems like talking to YOU is like talking to a wall.
>
> Ah.... NOW I understand!
Yes me too I understand, you have a bad case of lemesuriades.
>
> Yes, yes... intuitively, that certainly sounds correct...
> ;)
J.
Mark
news:3B756A73...@michelnostradamus.org...
>
> > Ah... so Nosty used the proven technique of taking (certain) words,
knowing
> > BEFOREHAND what the words would EVENTUALLY mean through etymological
> > evolution, and incorporated them into the Quatrains?
>
> Excuse me Mark, where do you read that in there?
> We take the words for what tthey meant to Nostradamus so far.
> Very weird for me to witness reactions like that all the time.
Hmmm... if you witness reactions like this all the time, I'd start to look
for some common denominator...a consistent feature. Let's see... now what
could that be...? Ah... possibly the consistent feature is WHAT they are
reacting TO?
> What are you talking about again? This is Peter that pretend that
> Nsotradamus meant he could make an error when he wrote he could NOT make
> an error about the prophetic work (except an unlikely case of
> distraction). It seems like talking to YOU is like talking to a wall.
I? Yes, yes... if that makes you feel better, then yes, I am a wall.
But I must conclude then... if Nosty could NOT make an error about the
prophetic work, then the errors must be yours. Unless of course Nosty
DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words knowing that ONLY Michel Dufresne and Jean
would one day be able assign the correct meaning to them...
Jean Guernon
Mark a écrit :
>
> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote in message
> news:3B756A73...@michelnostradamus.org...
> >
> > > Ah... so Nosty used the proven technique of taking (certain) words,
> knowing
> > > BEFOREHAND what the words would EVENTUALLY mean through etymological
> > > evolution, and incorporated them into the Quatrains?
> >
> > Excuse me Mark, where do you read that in there?
> > We take the words for what tthey meant to Nostradamus so far.
> > Very weird for me to witness reactions like that all the time.
>
> Hmmm... if you witness reactions like this all the time, I'd start to look
> for some common denominator...a consistent feature. Let's see... now what
> could that be...? Ah... possibly the consistent feature is WHAT they are
> reacting TO?
The common denominator is bad faith. They react to what I say as if I
hadn't said it.
The otehr common denominator is the people that do criticize don,t know
what they are talking about and will thus not argue the matter at hand.
Like you.
>
> > What are you talking about again? This is Peter that pretend that
> > Nsotradamus meant he could make an error when he wrote he could NOT make
> > an error about the prophetic work (except an unlikely case of
> > distraction). It seems like talking to YOU is like talking to a wall.
>
> I? Yes, yes... if that makes you feel better, then yes, I am a wall.
>
> But I must conclude then... if Nosty could NOT make an error about the
> prophetic work, then the errors must be yours.
Of course you must conclude that. But you must show me where I made an
error. Not say I did without dfurther argument when I show I haven't.
> Unless of course Nosty
> DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words knowing that ONLY Michel Dufresne and Jean
> would one day be able assign the correct meaning to them...
Nope. Nostradamus' prophetic work is just that, perfect.
Jean.
Mark
>
> The common denominator is bad faith. They react to what I say as if I
> hadn't said it.
> The otehr common denominator is the people that do criticize don,t know
> what they are talking about and will thus not argue the matter at hand.
> Like you.
Ah... so, I am supposed to react on your command that I *believe* on FAITH
alone?
THAT explains why you ignored my request for the definitions of three little
French words!
My sincere apologies... I didn't know that this was strictly a Religious
argument. I thought we were basing our attempts to understand Nosty by
doing a bit of RESEARCH in the Grande Scientific tradition.
I mean, Nosty would have wanted it that way...
(Unless, of course, you say otherwise). ;)
> > But I must conclude then... if Nosty could NOT make an error about the
> > prophetic work, then the errors must be yours.
>
> Of course you must conclude that. But you must show me where I made an
> error. Not say I did without dfurther argument when I show I haven't.
No, no... you've shown me the errors of my ways... I must take everything
you say on Faith alone. You are the God, I am mere peasant. Simple!
Borisdan
"Mark" <mbur...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:n4cd7.7176$7l5.89...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Rino" <mi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:t8ad7.31006$mZ.11...@weber.videotron.net...
> >
> > Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
> > quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way
that
> it
> > gives seven major events of the world.
>
> Please... enlighten me as to how you arrived at THAT conclusion.
>
"astronomical stanzas" indicating a pattern or coding. Do you suppose it
has anything to do with rising times of planets as Nostradamus
says....".....everything being calculated according to days and hours of
election"
Boris
Mark
news:X1ld7.1445$p04.3...@news.total.net...
>
> > The botton line on this argument is Nostradamus' statement that he wrote
> "astronomical stanzas" indicating a pattern or coding. Do you suppose it
> has anything to do with rising times of planets as Nostradamus
> says....".....everything being calculated according to days and hours of
> election"
Now that's an interesting idea... there is, of course a pattern to the
movement of the planets. Nosty and his ilk would have been very keen on
this matter. More so than most of us living today. :(
And it would seem that 'astronomical stanzas' is worth noting... especially
the 'stanza' part. ;)
What do you suggest?
(BTW, glad you're still here!)
matthewwinston
> Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 01:40:59 GMT, ozzy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >I got it, it does not read that they are in order, it also
> > >does not read that they are not in order.
> >
> > Something like that!
> > --
> >
> > Peter
>
> He wrote he could have put them in order if he had wanted to, but it
> would have made problems for him. Now if that means they are possibly in
> order for you, well it's your take, not mine.
>
its pretty far-fetched, if I post it via usenet I'm sure it would get
shot down. I'm barking with the big dogs here, the only thing I have
published is a zen haiku poem in a book of poetry that has five
hundred other authors in it.
>
>
> Ozzy, remember the part that Peter finds isn't important here?
>
updated version of it? it says adapted, I went back and read the
epistle it says adaptees or close to that, it was written as joined I
think befre that.
>
> No this one, "I could have done more and could have joined these
>
>
> quatrains one to the other. " But the other one: "But seeing, oh most
> serene monarch, that censorship could cause me difficulties, I withdrew
> my quill from the paper in order to dedicate myself to my nocturnal
> rest: ". So that the first one, remains occulted, and the statement
> about the quatrains not being in order, [remains] ambiguous, for him.
>
> But I don't understand his motives though. His books are certainly
> taking each quatrain in its individuality regardless of timing. (I
> certainly never advised anyone not to check them out BTW even if
>
the shelves BTW?did see your web page nice work.
>
> yesterday we talked about two other exegetes' books. They are
> interesting.) But it is this attitude that is is weird... Unless... hum,
> maybe he is working on Alef's idea for a future book? ;-)
>
> J.
>
maybe a book on cycling nosty prophecies, alephs idea is his own idea.
matthew winston
Jean Guernon
Mark a écrit :
>
> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote in message
> news:3B75A168...@michelnostradamus.org...
> >
> > The common denominator is bad faith. They react to what I say as if I
> > hadn't said it.
> > The otehr common denominator is the people that do criticize don,t know
> > what they are talking about and will thus not argue the matter at hand.
> > Like you.
>
> Ah... so, I am supposed to react on your command that I *believe* on FAITH
> alone?
>
> THAT explains why you ignored my request for the definitions of three little
> French words!
>
> My sincere apologies... I didn't know that this was strictly a Religious
> argument. I thought we were basing our attempts to understand Nosty by
> doing a bit of RESEARCH in the Grande Scientific tradition.
I don't know what you mean.
If you request something I reply to that request.
If you spew criticism I reply to that criticism.
It will always be the level of the qquestion that will prevail.
As dfar as I am concerned, you were talking about what was asked and
provided.
You haven't requested anything specific in your previous post. How would
I know what you're talking about?
>
> I mean, Nosty would have wanted it that way...
> (Unless, of course, you say otherwise). ;)
>
> > > But I must conclude then... if Nosty could NOT make an error about the
> > > prophetic work, then the errors must be yours.
> >
> > Of course you must conclude that. But you must show me where I made an
> > error. Not say I did without dfurther argument when I show I haven't.
>
> No, no... you've shown me the errors of my ways... I must take everything
> you say on Faith alone. You are the God, I am mere peasant. Simple!
This is not very brilliant. If it is the reflect of your own
potentiality, maybe you are a simpleton. Who knows.
J.
Jean Guernon
matthewwinston a écrit :
>
> Jean Guernon <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote in message news:<3B7566E1...@michelnostradamus.org>...
> > Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 01:40:59 GMT, ozzy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >I got it, it does not read that they are in order, it also
> > > >does not read that they are not in order.
> > >
> > > Something like that!
> > > --
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > He wrote he could have put them in order if he had wanted to, but it
> > would have made problems for him. Now if that means they are possibly in
> > order for you, well it's your take, not mine.
> >
> Well I did have an idea, but a few things did bring me into the light,
> its pretty far-fetched, if I post it via usenet I'm sure it would get
> shot down.
??? about Nostradamus? About how he got the poems? It's quite clear that
it made him utter the events (see the first quatrain of the first
century of the first edition of the quatrain
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/c1q1.html - BTW the original editions
of the quatrains will soon be all mirrored on my site),... but what was
the divination process, this flamme exigue sortant de solitude? Are you
infering some drug?
I hardly see what you can say that is so far fetch it can get you shot
down. Raziist here are totally off topics and promote terrorism, I
hardly see how anyone can top that... if you are on topic, how can you
be shot down? Wonder what it can be...
> I'm barking with the big dogs here, the only thing I have
> published is a zen haiku poem in a book of poetry that has five
> hundred other authors in it.
> >
> >
> > Ozzy, remember the part that Peter finds isn't important here?
> >
> some of it is important, like the epistle. notice Peters' posted
> updated version of it? it says adapted, I went back and read the
> epistle it says adaptees or close to that, it was written as joined I
> think befre that.
yes, well, this may be speculative for him, for me it is clear that they
aren't in order.
> >
> > No this one, "I could have done more and could have joined these
> >
> not joined, adapted.
> >
> > quatrains one to the other. " But the other one: "But seeing, oh most
> > serene monarch, that censorship could cause me difficulties, I withdrew
> > my quill from the paper in order to dedicate myself to my nocturnal
> > rest: ". So that the first one, remains occulted, and the statement
> > about the quatrains not being in order, [remains] ambiguous, for him.
> >
> > But I don't understand his motives though. His books are certainly
> > taking each quatrain in its individuality regardless of timing. (I
> > certainly never advised anyone not to check them out BTW even if
> >
> I have two of Peters books, one john hogue, uhm, havent seen yours on
> the shelves BTW?did see your web page nice work.
My books are in French, they are in French libraries.
> >
> > yesterday we talked about two other exegetes' books. They are
> > interesting.) But it is this attitude that is is weird... Unless... hum,
> > maybe he is working on Alef's idea for a future book? ;-)
> >
> > J.
> >
> Hebrew?
> maybe a book on cycling nosty prophecies, alephs idea is his own idea.
Yes but Alef inferred that the prophecies were in order. That's why I
said that about Peter, but more as a pun, as I doubt he would really
sail that venture.
J.
> matthew winston
leigh_bee
> > Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
> > quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way
that it
> > gives seven major events of the world. He did not wrote them for any one
of
> > his time. He did for us today and specially for the ones at the time of
his
> > five hundred birthday (2003). The epistle is not any better than the Qs
> > because you will not find a chronological order in it either.
> > The quatrains should be holding together like the links of a chain. Do
not
> > permit yourself to jump ahead to the next one until you know about the
one
> > in hand. This way of doing was first shown by Michel Dufresne and Jean
> > Guernon. By them, " half the stories are shown", this is from
Nostradamus.
> >
> > Rino
>
Well if you want a chronology try the Epistle it is convoluted but according
to My reading the "A/C" is about 10-15 years away and even then not apparent
but search away. Who has the insight to see this? we all have a "POV "
remember myths are harder to kill than truth
Rino
"Mark" <mbur...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:n4cd7.7176$7l5.89...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> news:t8ad7.31006$mZ.11...@weber.videotron.net...
> >
> > Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
> > quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way
that
> it
> > gives seven major events of the world.
>
> Please... enlighten me as to how you arrived at THAT conclusion.
To enlighten must come from the Qs. Births must be considered. They do not
apply only to men. They are about countries, religions, political systems,
invented devices, etc..
From Q.1,50, we find the birth of the United States. This country was said
to be like it is today. In the Qs, this country has its own characteristics
and it is going to his end like the great Roman Empire did.
Here we have one story out of seven
The Qs must be done in the given order
Rino
Mark
>
> > No, no... you've shown me the errors of my ways... I must take
everything
> > you say on Faith alone. You are the God, I am mere peasant. Simple!
>
> This is not very brilliant. If it is the reflect of your own
> potentiality, maybe you are a simpleton. Who knows.
As you say, my lord...
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>He wrote he could have put them in order if he had wanted to, but it
>would have made problems for him.
Please quote the exact French, and pinpoint the bit where he talks
about their 'order'.
Or are you just putting your own words into Nostradamus's mouth, as
usual?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
wrote:
>> No this one, "I could have done more and could have joined these
>>
>not joined, adapted.
Ah -- THAT bit.
OK -- let's see Jean quote it and then fiddle the meaning to make it
say something about 'order'!
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>but what was
>the divination process, this flamme exigue sortant de solitude? Are you
>infering some drug?
Did Nostradamus say he used a 'flamme exigue sortant de solitude'?
Or did he merely quote from Iamblichus's account of the prophetess at
Delphi in order to associate himself with the ancient oracles?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
>
>Mark a écrit :
>>
>> "Rino" <mi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:t8ad7.31006$mZ.11...@weber.videotron.net...
>> >
>> > Chronological order do not exist. But Nostradamus did not mixed the
>> > quatrains like you do with playing cards. The order is in such a way that
>> it
>> > gives seven major events of the world.
>>
>> Please... enlighten me as to how you arrived at THAT conclusion.
>>
>> > This way of doing was first shown by Michel Dufresne and Jean
>> > Guernon. By them, " half the stories are shown", this is from Nostradamus.
>>
>> Ah... so Nosty used the proven technique of taking (certain) words, knowing
>> BEFOREHAND what the words would EVENTUALLY mean through etymological
>> evolution, and incorporated them into the Quatrains?
>
>Excuse me Mark, where do you read that in there?
>
>We take the words for what tthey meant to Nostradamus so far.
Except when you take them for what tthey meant to Dufresne so far?
>
>Very weird for me to witness reactions like that all the time.
>
>>
>> ... and Nosty also DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words... and KNEW that ONLY
>> Michel Dufresne and Jean would one day be able assign the CORRECT meaning to
>> them... thereby revealing the hidden messages of his original texts!?!?!?
>
>What are you talking about again? This is Peter that pretend that
>Nsotradamus meant he could make an error when he wrote he could NOT make
>an error about the prophetic work (except an unlikely case of
>distraction).
In that case, then, the words he used are the correct ones -- which
ipso facto means that Dufresne's and Guernon's versions of them are
wrong whenever they say that they mean something other than what they
meant at the time -- which, on the basis of what we've looked at so
far, is something like once in every verse...
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>But I must conclude then... if Nosty could NOT make an error about the
>prophetic work, then the errors must be yours. Unless of course Nosty
>DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words knowing that ONLY Michel Dufresne and Jean
>would one day be able assign the correct meaning to them...
The logic is impeccable!
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>Of course you must conclude that. But you must show me where I made an
>error.
Hang on! Around ten of them have been pointed out already -- some of
which you yourself have now admitted -- and all in the first ten
verses we examined.
How many errors does it take to make an error?
Ah well, since you seem to have forgotten it, here again is my summary
of all your main linguistic errors in the first ten verses we looked
at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. On the basis of the very first ten or so verse-interpretations of
Jean's that we examined here during July/August 2001 (I.17, I.63,
III.13, II.28, V.92, IX.1, IX.1*, IX.2*,IX.3* and IX.4*) it became
perfectly clear on both linguistic (see below) and historical grounds
that no more than 20% of them at most can be considered potentially
reliable (as opposed to the 100% that he was unwise enough to claim!).
*All as printed in Jean's own published book 'Nostradamus: Neuvième
Centurie' [JCL, 1999]
In case anybody here has forgotten it, he gave 'blindness' instead of
'drought' for 'siccité', 'flowers' instead of 'scourges' for 'fleaux'
-- the result, in this case, of a failure to consult the original text
-- 'on' instead of 'sure' for 'seur', 'peace' instead of 'rainbow' for
'Iris', 'Sagittarius' instead of 'coffer' for 'arche', 'will write'
instead of 'will wander' for 'vaguera', 'delivered' instead of 'clear
out' for 'vuidez', 'burnt' instead of 'looted' for 'saccagée'**, and
'emptiness/space' instead of 'cow' for 'vaqua' -- while CC (not all of
whose views I necessarily otherwise share) additionally found at least
two sets of historical circumstances that just didn't fit.
** ibid: p.41, lines 8-10.
By way of detailed research, here now are OCRs of the definitions of
each of the above words, as given in Dauzat's 'Dictionnaire
étymologique' (Larousse, 1938), which covers all the known uses of the
words in question back to at least the 11th century, not least as
defined in all the known dictionaries back as far as the celebrated
Estienne brothers of Nostradamus's own day:
------------------------------------------------------------------
siccatif (1531, B.; rare jusqu’au XIXe s.), siccité (XVIe s.,
Montaigne), empr. au lat. siccativus (III s., C. Aurelius), siccitas
(rac. siccus, sec).
[English 'dryness'/'drought': no mention in the French of anything
meaning 'blindness'.]
fléau (fiaiel, Xe s., Saint Léger; id. et flael, XIIe s.), du lat.
flagellum, fouet, spécialisé pour le fléau articulé (IXe s., saint
Jérôme); excussorium s’appliquait au fléau-bâton [Gilliéron]. Au fig.,
d’après la métaphore du lat. cccl. flagellum Domini, châtiment envoyé
par Dieu (trad. de la Bible).
[English 'scourge': no mention in the French of anything meaning
'flowers'.]
sûr (seür, soür, XIIe s.), du lat. securus. Dér.: sûreté, d’après le
lat. securitas (xve s., Commines). V. SÉCURITÉ.
[English 'sure': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'on'.]
iris (XIIIe s., nom de fleur; arc-en-ciel, XVIIe s., Descartes), empr.
au lat. iris (aux deux sens), mot grec; le sens anat. (XVIe s., Paré)
vient du grec. Dér. : iriser (XVIII’ s., Buffon), -sation (XIXe s.).
[English 'iris'/'rainbow': no mention in the French of anything
meaning 'peace'.]
arche, eccl., arche de Noé, etc. et techn. (XIIIe s.), du lat. arca,
coffre, « arche » dans la Vulgate (= coffre dans le Centre et le Midi,
où il est pop., comme l’it. et esp. arca).
[English 'ark'/'coffer': no mention in the French of anything meaning
'Sagittarius', nor even 'archer'.]
vaguer (vers 1230, B.), empr. au lat. vagari, aller çà et là, errer.
V. VAGABOND.
[English 'to wander': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'to
write'.]
vide (vuide, voide, XIIe s.), du lat. vulg. *vocitus (it. vuoto), de
la famille de vacuus, vide (cf. vocivus, vide, f1 s., Térence). Dér.:
vider (vuidier, XIIe s., Enéas); vidange (wuidenghe, 1286, G.),
-angeur (vui-, 168o, Richelet), -anger (xixe s., L.); videur (1332,
G.); videlle, techn. (1812, Mozin); vidard (cheval) (1872, L.); vidure
(fin xix’ s.); évider(esvuidier, XIIe s., Loherains), evidoir (1756,
Encyci.), -dure (1812, Mozin); survider (1549, R. Est.); revider
(1803, Boiste); V. DÉVIDER; vide-coq, bécasse (XIVe s., Modus),
vide-bouteille (I56o, D. G., surnom),-poches (1823, Boiste), -pommés
(1842, Mozin).
[English 'empty': no mention in the French of anything meaning
'deliver' or 'delivered'.]
saccager (XVIe Rab.), empr.à l’it. saccheggiare (dér. de sacco, V. SAC
2). Dér.: saccageur, -gement (vers 1550, P. Doré), saccage (1633,
Peiresc).
[English 'to sack/plunder/loot/pillage/ransack': no mention in the
French of anything meaning 'to burn'.]
vache (XIIe s., L.), du lat., vacca; fig., vache enragée (manger de
la), 1842, Mozin, et les Misérables, 3e p., V, i; sens péjor. pop. fin
XIXe s. (Sichs-V.), adj., xxe s. r- Dér. et comp.: vachette (petite
vache, xvie s.; cuir, 1866, L.); vachotte (1877, L.), nom de diverses
plantes broutées par les vaches.
[English 'cow': no mention in the French of anything meaning
'emptiness, space'.]
As for:
vaquer (XIIIe s., Br. Latini, être vacant; s’occuper, xive s.,
Bersuire, sens qui l’a emporté), empr. au lat. vacare, proprem. « être
vide ». V. VACANT, VACATION, VACUITE;
[English 'to be vacant/empty': no suggestion in the French of any form
resembling 'vaqua' or 'vacca', whose gender would in any case be wrong
for the etymology]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now I am charitably assuming that Jean didn't just make all these
word-errors up, but got them from Michel Dufresne's 'Dictionnaire
Nostradamus' (1989), instead of from the obvious early sources, the
main ones of which are to be found at
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/dicos/
which clearly show the falsity of most of Jean's proposed 'meanings'
as listed above.
True, he tends to blame electotranslator-error for much of the above,
but, apart from the case of 'seur', no electrotranslator in the world
is capable of producing the versions listed -- and the last four are
in any case from his own *printed book*.
Now, even skipping over the fact that Jean seems to have only the
haziest notion of how to use a dictionary in the first place, this in
turn suggests something rather more important, namely that:
2. Dufresne's 'Dictionnaire Nostradamus' isn't reliable either. Now
this rather surprises me, since it is generally supposed to be quite
useful -- but if the information that Jean seems to have got from it
is to be be believed, what Dufresne appears to have done was
(a) to find out and set down the meanings of the various 'strange'
words as far as he could find them out, but then (or possibly instead)
(b) to give a proposed meaning of his own invention, often unrelated
to (a) above, and designed simply to make the verse in question
(which, significantly perhaps, he generally identifies) say what he
wanted it to say.
Jean, in his enthusiasm for Dufresne, unfortunately appears to have
swallowed (b) wholesale.
Now I'm not necessarily blaming Jean for letting himself be led astray
initially by dodgy sources -- despite the fact that both Claude and I
have been warning him about it for years (he took not a blind bit of
notice, of course). After all, I originally did the same myself with
Erika Cheetham, who seemed to me serious and authoritative at the time
-- until I found out, mainly with the help of the staff of
Nostradamus's house in Salon, just how extraordinarily unreliable she
was. Whereupon I duly revised my views drastically and reflected the
fact in my writings, if necessary taking the risk of contradicting my
earlier assertions (much to the annoyance of certain people here!).
IMHO Jean should now do the same. However, I doubt very much whether
he will. With his claims of 100% accuracy, he has invested far
too much in his existing ideas, and will probably just defend them
doggedly, come what may, casting all normal reason and logic aside
and resorting to personal abuse whenever he runs out of answers...
Which will be a shame, since it will merely discredit him and his
views even further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that my last two paragraphs have already been amply borne out.
So is he now going to continue to wriggle and squirm, or just admit
the errors -- *all* of them, and not just the ones that are convenient
for him?
Or should we, perhaps, look critically at a few more of his alleged
'interpretations'?...
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>From Q.1,50, we find the birth of the United States.
Or is it just the birth of someone FROM the United States? I tend to
associate it with General Douglas MacArthur, but your
fellow-countryman Brind'Amour's carefully thought-out and
well-documented analysis (OCRed below) doesn't lend much credence to
either idea:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.50 De l’aquatique triplicité naistra
D’un qui fera le jeudy pour sa feste
Son bruit, loz, regne, sa puissance croistra:
Par terre & mer aux orients tempeste.
Variantes: D’un qui: un qui GAR; sa puissance: & puissance GAR.
Lexique : D’un qui = d’aucun qui, quelqu’un qui; bruit =
renom, gloire: « O Nostradamus, & par terre & par l’air / Ton
bruit est grand te rendant non mortel » (Almanach pour 1563.
quatrain composé par Perrinet Des Aubers); ioz (latin laus) =
louange, renom: «L’estat changé, on querra bruit & los »
(C 6.50.3), «Erasistratus loue grandement le medecin, qui par
son industrie.., acquiert loz, honneur, gloire & louange, &
memoire perpetuelle » (Le Vray et Parfaict, p. 32r);
tempeste = chef de guerre, foudre de guerre: «Marius, tempeste de
guerre, homme nourri parmi le bruit & les armes » (César de
Nostredame, Histoire et Chronique de Provence, p. 10E).
Paraphrase: De la triplicité aquatique naîtra quelqu’un qui fera
du jeudi son jour de fête; son renom, sa louange, son règne, sa
puissance croîtront; il portera la guerre aux Orientaux par terre et
par mer.
Commentaire: Le Livre des grandes conjonctions d’Albumasar distingue
quatre triplicités: de feu, de terre, d’air et d’eau, chacune assurant
la chronocratorie de trois signes du zodiaque -- Cancer, Scorpion et
Poissons, pour la triplicité aquatique -- où se reproduisent
successivement, pendant quelques 240 ans, les conjonctions en
longitude de Saturne et de Jupiter (78). Au cours de la triplicité
aquatique, dominée par le Scorpion, signe des fondateurs de sectes, à
savoir entre 1402 et 1641, naîtra un jovialiste, c’est-à-dire un
personnage dont l’horoscope est dominé par Jupiter et qui est destiné
à devenir un prélat ou un clerc; il fondera une secte pour laquelle le
jeudi sera un jour férié, comme le vendredi l’est pour les Musulmans,
le samedi pour les Juifs et le dimanche pour les Chrétiens. C’est l’un
des grands thèmes nostradamiens (79): « Le penultime du surnom du
prophete / Prendra Diai pour son jour & repos » (C 2.28.1-2), «Lors
qu’on viendra pour jeudy venerer... » (C 10.71.2), « Le temps present
avecques le passé / Sera jugé par grand Jovialiste... » (C 10.73.1-2).
78Astrophile, chapitre 'Les grandes conjonctions'.
79Astrophile, p. 213-214.
--
Peter
Mark
news:06kcnt4mr6ss57lff...@4ax.com...
>
> Ah well, since you seem to have forgotten it, here again is my summary
> of all your main linguistic errors in the first ten verses we looked
> at:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Outstanding research... really very, very good.
<brevity snip>
> So is he now going to continue to wriggle and squirm, or just admit
> the errors -- *all* of them, and not just the ones that are convenient
> for him?
>
> Or should we, perhaps, look critically at a few more of his alleged
> 'interpretations'?...
I think I'd learn a lot! Yes, yes... let's look at a few more!
Peter Lemesurier
<lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Or should we, perhaps, look critically at a few more of his alleged
>'interpretations'?...
OK. Here are a few more for your delectation (all as printed in Jean's
own published book 'Nostradamus: Neuvième Centurie' [JCL, 1999]):
1. At IX.8 Jean gives "'Puysnay Roy faict son pere mettre à mort"
(corrupt edition) as "Puîné Roi fait, son père mettra a mort" ('The
second-born King does/makes, his father will put to death" -- sounds
typically Guernonian to me!!), when in fact it's perfectly ordinary
poetic French for "Le Roi puîné fait mettre à mort son père" ('The
second-born King has his father put to death').
2. At IX.10 Jean renders "Mourir par ourse" into modern French
(speaking of a deliberately exposed child) as ... er ... "Mourir par
ourse" ('to die by she-bear'), when it should in fact be "Mourra par
ourse" ('Shall die by she-bear'): Jean obviously hasn't spotted yet
that Nostradamus frequently (as here) uses the infinitive form as a
future, just as even in modern French it can be used both as a past
tense and as an imperative.
3. In the second line of IX.17, Jean renders "Vuidez" ('empty, clear
out') as "Voyez" ('see') -- which is odd, because at IX.2 he says it
means 'delivered' (twice). Has he not made his mind up about just what
he wants it to mean, I wonder? Perhaps it's the linguistic equivalent
of the Joker in cards? ;)
4. At IX.18 he fails to spot that the last word ("peine") is an
obvious misprint for "pyre", and so he translates is as 'châtiment'
('punishment') -- or otherwise it won't rhyme with line 2. Or perhaps
he hasn't realised the Propheties are in verse yet?
5. At IX.21 he translates "Roy pernicant" ('killing the King' -- from
Latin 'perneco') as "Roi infatigable" ('the king tireless'). (Well, I
suppose he would be!... ;) )
Well, have we found enough errors to make *one* yet, do you think?
(To give him due credit, the verses in between don't seem to have too
many major errors -- but then even one error is presumably enough to
scupper his claim to be 'the only one alive who has the correct
interpretation of all the verses and the letters', isn't it?)
--
Peter
Borisdan
The astronomical stanzas would explain his reference to nocturnal watching
indicating a direct connection between a pattern (mathematical) and each one
of his poems..Just because we have not found a code yet does not mean there
isn't one. We just have not made the right connection between his poems,
astronomy and the Bible.. With our modern day computer technology it should
not be too long before we find a major clue to Nostradamus coding. I guess
we need to do more research into ancient coding systems, astronomical charts
(especially from the years 1557, 1585 and 1606) and numerology from the
Bible.
It may have been difficult for Nostradamus to project his astronomical
calculations far into the future and as a result may have confined his
coding into these years (specifically mentioned in his letter)
As far as the Bible is concerened, good place to start is from the Book of
Numbers...strange title for something from the Bible...Stranger is its use
of numbers throughout its pages suggestting some ancient form of numerology
which we no longer understand...A quick example......in the Book each family
is numbered, some running into the thousands, but of each family group the
final number ends in a zero..There is no number between one and
nine....strange, if I was taking a head count I would want to be a little
more accurate rather then rounding out each tribe to the nearest zero..
Well there is a lot more in there then timewould permit me to explain (or
try and explain?) so enough said for now
Boris
Peter Lemesurier
<lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Or is it just the birth of someone FROM the United States? I tend to
>associate it with General Douglas MacArthur, but your
>fellow-countryman Brind'Amour's carefully thought-out and
>well-documented analysis (OCRed below) doesn't lend much credence to
>either idea:
I should of course have acknowledged the source of that: Brind'Amour,
P.: 'Les Premières Centuries ou Prophéties', Droz, 1996.
--
Peter
Rino
You have a good sequence of Qs. For one time you brought something usefull.
To me, Q.1,50 and Q.2,28 are about new countries.
Using the plus and the less like in Q.6,02, Q.1,50 has one date (1940)
Q2,28 from Mario's edition the date is 2003 and from Michel Dufresne (2004)
One new country will be born. Nostradamus says that it will be translated
from English to French.
This new country will have Monday as his day of rest.
Rino
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:18:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >He wrote he could have put them in order if he had wanted to, but it
> >would have made problems for him.
>
> Please quote the exact French, and pinpoint the bit where he talks
> about their 'order'.
>
He could have put them one after the other. What do you call that?
> Or are you just putting your own words into Nostradamus's mouth, as
> usual?
> --
>
> Peter
Again I have to quote what I quoted 3 times already in the pas days?
Jeez Peter. As if you ignored which words I am talking about. You're
kidding or what? Why didn't you comment on the post where I did? OK I
will psot it again hereafter, but this time i won't let you try to
weasel out of the part where he gives the reasons why he didn't do it.
Oh better, I will attach the post with it where you replied.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On 11 Aug 2001 20:50:27 -0700, ozzy...@hotmail.com (matthewwinston)
> wrote:
>
> >> No this one, "I could have done more and could have joined these
> >>
> >not joined, adapted.
>
> Ah -- THAT bit.
Ah he could have adapted them one to another?
Yeah, right.
Well since I already provided the quote in the previous post let's wait
and see. I really don't know what you can fiddle about on this one
except that you think it could go both ways if I remember correctly.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:37:13 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >but what was
> >the divination process, this flamme exigue sortant de solitude? Are you
> >infering some drug?
>
> Did Nostradamus say he used a 'flamme exigue sortant de solitude'?
Again, fiddling on details... Didn't he Peter?
>
> Or did he merely quote from Iamblichus's account of the prophetess at
> Delphi in order to associate himself with the ancient oracles?
Err, the reason is his. But anyway, so?
J.
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
But here there is nothing quoted, just that. One would have to say that
in relation to what i.e. something... real. Mark has to point to hwat
besides siccité we may have missed and in what way we didn't correctly
address the situation and read the replies..
Otherwise any fool can pretend anything, hey Peter.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Peter, we have seen you say that about every verse, but each assertions
were refuted carefully for each and every verse as well.
In other words, what you say above is actually a lie.
J.
>
> Peter
hpela la hpela
<ozzy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L20d7.5817$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <8897ntor67pgvrt6h...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Lemesurier says...
> >
> >On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:15:47 GMT, ozzy...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> >>from what I read in the epistle to Henry(english), it
> says he "could have put
> >>them in order connecting one to another".
In this part of his letter to his son, Nostradamus mention the " linear of
time "
& sinistres aduentures de acceleree promptitude pronôcees
que depuis sont aduenues par les climats du monde ayant
voulu taire & delaisser pour cause de l'iniure, & non tant
seulement du temps present, mais aussi de la plus grande
part du futur, de mettre par escrit pource que les regnes,
sectes & religions feront changes si opposites, voire du
respect du present diametralement, que si ie venois à referer
& sinister adventures of the accelerated promptitude pronounced
that since had advent by the climate of the world which I wanter
to silence & left over for cause of laniary, & non so much as
only the present time, but also of the more grand
part of the future, to put by script for that the reigns,
sects, & religions will make changes so opposites, seeing from
the respect of the present diametrically, that if I would come to refer
Note from the translator;
Laniary; is the continuance of such stories.
respect ; as regard of the present time, area of the year 1555 .
Reigns, sects and religions will oppose and change the letters
of the quatrains.
The Pope. Holy letter ( HE )
AlefTav
In this other part he mention the word " continual "
Paragraph No 16 Nostradamus letter to his Son.
Translated on a word for word basis.
Ad Caesarem Nostradamus filium,
Et aussi mô fils, ie te suplie
que iamais tu ne vueilles employer ton entendement à telles resue-
ries & vanitez qui seichent les corps & mettent à perdition l'ame,
dônant trouble au foible sens: mesmes la vanité de la plus qu'exe-
crable magie reprouuee iadis par les sacrees escritures, & par les
diuins canons au chef duquel est excepté le iugement de l'As-
trologie iudicielle: par laquelle, & moyennant inspiration & reue-
lation diuine par continuelles supputations, auons nos propheties
redigé par escrit.
=============================================
Also my son, I supplicate you
that never you would want to employ your understanding
to such dreams & vanities which dries the corpses & put in
perdition the soul, giving trouble to the weak senses: even
the vanity of the more execrable magic reproved formerly by the
holly scriptures, & by the divine cannons to the chief of which one
is excepted the judgment of the heavenly astrology: by which one,
& providing inspiration & revelation divine by continual
deductions, we have our propheties edited by script.
No 20 Nostradamus letter to his Son.
Translated on a word for word basis.
And finally, here he mention that he connected the quatrains a " little
confusedly "
Alef
Ad Caesarem Nostradamus filium,
suis pecheur plus grand que nul
de ce môde, subiect à toutes humaines afflictions. Mais estant
surprins par fois la sepmaine limphatiquant, & par longue calcula-
tion, rendant les estudes nocturnes de souefue odeur, i'ay côposé
liures de propheties côtenant chacû cent quatrains astronomiques
de propheties, lesquelles i'ay vn peu voulu rabouter obscuremêt &
sont perpetuelles vaticinations, pour d'yci à l'annee 3797. Que
possible fera retirer le front à quelques vns, en voyant longue
extention, & par soubs toute la concauité de la Lune aura lieu &
intelligence:
=============================================
I'm sinner more grand than any
of this world, subject to all human afflictions. But been
surprised sometime the week lymphatiquant, & by long calcula-
tion, rendering the nocturnal studies of sulphur odour, i have composed
books of prophecies, which one I have wanted to reconnect a little
obscurely & are perpetual vaticination, For from here to the year 3797.
Which possibly will make withdraw the forehead to a few, in seeing the long
extension, & by under all the concavity of the Moon will have lieu &
intelligence:
> >
> >I don't recollect that bit. Could we have the exact words,
> please --
> >either in French or in English -- and if possible some
> indication as
> >to where?
> >
> ok, it doesnt say in order(I belive that was jeans own
> comment which you repled to it being his gloss),but it does
> say joined these quatrains one to the other.
>
> It doesnt say either way if they are or are not in order.
>
> Removing his quill from the paper, what would Nostradamus
> have written to "join" the quatrains?
>
> numbers, letters, some kind of dating system, zodiac signs,
> some kind of system.
> >
> Not excatly. What he said was that he could have dated each
> of them (and hemnce put them in order).
> http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM73
> 73. que si ie voulais à vn chacun quatrain mettre le
> dénombrement du temps, se pourrait faire: mais à tous ne
> serait aggreable, ne moins les interpréter iusques à ce
> Sire, que vostre Molesté m'aye octroyé ample puissance pour
> ce faire, pour ne donner cause aux calomniateurs de me
> mordre.
>
> "so much that, if I wanted it, I could date each of
> quatrains: but the thing would not be pleasant to all; or
> to specify their sense, but it would be necessary that your
> Majesty first gave me the whole authorization, in order not
> to give to my slanderers the opportunity to tear me apart.
> "
> and then went on to say that he could have joined them
> together one after the other but didn't:
>
> http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM113
> 113. Que toutes ces figures sont iustement adaptées par les
> diurnes lettres aux choses célestes visibles, c'est à
> sçavoir, par Saturne, Iupiter, & Mars, & les autres
> conioincts, comme plus a plain par aucuns quadrins l'on
> pourra voir. Ie eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus
> profondement, & adapté les vns auecques les autres.
>
> All these things are adapted exactly to the divine
> characters and the visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and
> Mars, and others in conjunction, as one could have seen it
> more amply in some quatrains. I could have done more and
> could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
>
> 114. Mais voyant ô Serenissime Roy, que quelqu'vns de la
> sensure trouueront difficulté, qui sera cause de retirer ma
> plume à mon repos nocturne:
>
> But seeing, oh most serene monarch, that censorship could
> cause me difficulties, I withdrew my quill from the paper
> in order to dedicate myself to my nocturnal rest:
>
> >>
> >>I have a question about this, does it say anywhere that
> the quatrains are "NOT"
> >>in order?
> >
> >He says he had 'put them together rather obscurely'. Make
> what you
> >will of that!
> >
> >>
> >>If it doesnt say that, why squabble?
> >
> >Because Certain People here are rather prone to quote as
> >'Nostradamus's words' what are in fact their own words,
> based merely
> >on what they understand Nostradamus to have *meant*. So
> convinced are
> >they that they are right that they don't even bother to
> check whether
> >he actually said them or not!
> >
> he wrote it, not said it, or did he say it?
>
> I got it, it does not read that they are in order, it also
> does not read that they are not in order.
> >--
> >
> >Peter
> >
>
> matthew winston
hpela la hpela
> > maybe a book on cycling nosty prophecies, alephs idea is his own idea.
>
> Yes but Alef inferred that the prophecies were in order. That's why I
> said that about Peter, but more as a pun, as I doubt he would really
> sail that venture.
To view the quatrain's order, one need to know the principle of the Hebrew
letters as they show up in the Hebraic scroll, their purposes, their goals
and their spiritual entities, as each one is a principle of destruction.
Alef
>
> J.
> > matthew winston
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:30:08 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >Of course you must conclude that. But you must show me where I made an
> >error.
>
> Hang on! Around ten of them have been pointed out already -- some of
> which you yourself have now admitted -- and all in the first ten
> verses we examined.
>
> How many errors does it take to make an error?
>
> Ah well, since you seem to have forgotten it, here again is my summary
> of all your main linguistic errors in the first ten verses we looked
> at:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. On the basis of the very first ten or so verse-interpretations of
> Jean's that we examined here during July/August 2001 (I.17, I.63,
> III.13, II.28, V.92, IX.1, IX.1*, IX.2*,IX.3* and IX.4*) it became
> perfectly clear on both linguistic (see below) and historical grounds
> that no more than 20% of them at most can be considered potentially
> reliable (as opposed to the 100% that he was unwise enough to claim!).
>
> *All as printed in Jean's own published book 'Nostradamus: Neuvième
> Centurie' [JCL, 1999]
>
> In case anybody here has forgotten it, he gave 'blindness' instead of
> 'drought' for 'siccité', 'flowers' instead of 'scourges' for 'fleaux'
Yes this quatrain about siccité and is the same as the missing editions
we know we know. We shall see what it means and if it si scourges after
I assess it. What else.
> -- the result, in this case, of a failure to consult the original text
> -- 'on' instead of 'sure' for 'seur', 'peace' instead of 'rainbow' for
> 'Iris', 'Sagittarius' instead of 'coffer' for 'arche', 'will write'
> instead of 'will wander' for 'vaguera', 'delivered' instead of 'clear
> out' for 'vuidez', 'burnt' instead of 'looted' for 'saccagée'**, and
> 'emptiness/space' instead of 'cow' for 'vaqua' -- while CC (not all of
> whose views I necessarily otherwise share) additionally found at least
> two sets of historical circumstances that just didn't fit.
Yes all that we have been through. All that is perfectly ok as it is the
literal translation of what it actually may mean, not of what it
actually reads. All that you have failed to show an error BTW. Ha good,
we go again into detail. This time pay attention.
>
> ** ibid: p.41, lines 8-10.
>
> By way of detailed research, here now are OCRs of the definitions of
> each of the above words, as given in Dauzat's 'Dictionnaire
> étymologique' (Larousse, 1938), which covers all the known uses of the
> words in question back to at least the 11th century, not least as
> defined in all the known dictionaries back as far as the celebrated
> Estienne brothers of Nostradamus's own day:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> siccatif (1531, B.; rare jusqu’au XIXe s.), siccité (XVIe s.,
> Montaigne), empr. au lat. siccativus (III s., C. Aurelius), siccitas
> (rac. siccus, sec).
>
> [English 'dryness'/'drought': no mention in the French of anything
> meaning 'blindness'.]
>
> fléau (fiaiel, Xe s., Saint Léger; id. et flael, XIIe s.), du lat.
> flagellum, fouet, spécialisé pour le fléau articulé (IXe s., saint
> Jérôme); excussorium s’appliquait au fléau-bâton [Gilliéron]. Au fig.,
> d’après la métaphore du lat. cccl. flagellum Domini, châtiment envoyé
> par Dieu (trad. de la Bible).
> [English 'scourge': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'flowers'.]
Did I context this Peter? Did I? The minute you said it I checked and
saw you were right. It is the only place where you are right. But I have
admitted it since the beginning. Let's see the rest.
This quatrain, is THE mistake and the missing word in the editions
available at the time.
Let's hope this time you are careful of the reply for the rest Peter.
>
> sûr (seür, soür, XIIe s.), du lat. securus. Dér.: sûreté, d’après le
> lat. securitas (xve s., Commines). V. SÉCURITÉ.
>
> [English 'sure': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'on'.]
(Let's leave aside the one you didn't have on your list - sour and
rather focus on the one you had, surmarchera.)
1. SEURMARCHERA: I have shown that other use are possible and that words
that begin with seur as a prefix didn't have merely 2 definitions
(Nicot) but dozens. Your dictionary is not good, it doesn't mean that
the definitions we use aren't.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/seur.jpg
Many that are in use today: Seurmonter (not in Nicot of course, like
sacagement), became "surmonter" for example. Why would Nostradamus make
up a word secure-walk as a verb? Oh right, it is not secure-walk this is
an error of the printer. It is Secure then walk and the printer was
wrong. Ohh, sorry.
Knowing how Nostradamus made up many words that didn't exist by modeling
on those that did. But it is not your groupies that can get that, only
people like maybe Claude can get things like that, if you stubbornly
refuse to acknowledge these realities.
Doesn't change them, nor does it change your motivations.
>
> iris (XIIIe s., nom de fleur; arc-en-ciel, XVIIe s., Descartes), empr.
> au lat. iris (aux deux sens), mot grec; le sens anat. (XVIe s., Paré)
> vient du grec. Dér. : iriser (XVIII’ s., Buffon), -sation (XIXe s.).
>
> [English 'iris'/'rainbow': no mention in the French of anything
> meaning 'peace'.]
This indeed is again a literal translation, as indeed a rainbow is a
sign of peace much like the arch of alliance...
>
> arche, eccl., arche de Noé, etc. et techn. (XIIIe s.), du lat. arca,
> coffre, « arche » dans la Vulgate (= coffre dans le Centre et le Midi,
> où il est pop., comme l’it. et esp. arca).
>
> [English 'ark'/'coffer': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'Sagittarius', nor even 'archer'.]
Your own definition, (that I won't put hereafter again, if you made like
you ignored it it's your own problem), showed that "arche" came from
"arcus" as well, that it was as speculative to decide it is from arqua.
The first definition in fact in
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/arche.jpg is about arc-arcus. your
whole argument was a fallacy just because you wanted it to match some
event about a coffer, even if it eludes the whole rest of the quatrain.
>
> vaguer (vers 1230, B.), empr. au lat. vagari, aller çà et là, errer.
> V. VAGABOND.
>
> [English 'to wander': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'to
> write'.]
>
Yes and it was merely a potential literal translation and I have shown
that it can be used in that sense. in the first example given for
vaguant in the same source in
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/vagant.jpg.
This is not wrong Peter. This is just a word of the litteral
translation. Did you read the whole thing about this quatrain in our
books BTW? No. How can you judge from an untweaked electro-translation
of a literal translation?
> vide (vuide, voide, XIIe s.), du lat. vulg. *vocitus (it. vuoto), de
> la famille de vacuus, vide (cf. vocivus, vide, f1 s., Térence). Dér.:
> vider (vuidier, XIIe s., Enéas); vidange (wuidenghe, 1286, G.),
> -angeur (vui-, 168o, Richelet), -anger (xixe s., L.); videur (1332,
> G.); videlle, techn. (1812, Mozin); vidard (cheval) (1872, L.); vidure
> (fin xix’ s.); évider(esvuidier, XIIe s., Loherains), evidoir (1756,
> Encyci.), -dure (1812, Mozin); survider (1549, R. Est.); revider
> (1803, Boiste); V. DÉVIDER; vide-coq, bécasse (XIVe s., Modus),
> vide-bouteille (I56o, D. G., surnom),-poches (1823, Boiste), -pommés
> (1842, Mozin).
>
> [English 'empty': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'deliver' or 'delivered'.]
Oh yes this one... AGAIN. May I quote you from message-ID:
<3B7043AF...@michelnostradamus.org>
---------------
> >> > >>> 'delivered' instead of 'clear out' for 'vuidez',
>
> I have to admit -- looking more closely at your text -- that you
> actually got this one right. Apologies. The article will be revised
> next time I post it -- if I have to!
Phew. Thanks.
----------------
Alzheimer?
>
> saccager (XVIe Rab.), empr.à l’it. saccheggiare (dér. de sacco, V. SAC
> 2). Dér.: saccageur, -gement (vers 1550, P. Doré), saccage (1633,
> Peiresc).
>
> [English 'to sack/plunder/loot/pillage/ransack': no mention in the
> French of anything meaning 'to burn'.]
You have admitted that the modern word meant that (quote?), and I have
shown you, not only in your limited Nicot but out of other dictionaries
of the same epoch, that even the former form of the word, when there was
only one "c", and when saccage was written sacagement, meant,
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/sacager.jpg.
>
> vache (XIIe s., L.), du lat., vacca; fig., vache enragée (manger de
> la), 1842, Mozin, et les Misérables, 3e p., V, i; sens péjor. pop. fin
> XIXe s. (Sichs-V.), adj., xxe s. r- Dér. et comp.: vachette (petite
> vache, xvie s.; cuir, 1866, L.); vachotte (1877, L.), nom de diverses
> plantes broutées par les vaches.
>
> [English 'cow': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'emptiness, space'.]
>
> As for:
>
> vaquer (XIIIe s., Br. Latini, être vacant; s’occuper, xive s.,
> Bersuire, sens qui l’a emporté), empr. au lat. vacare, proprem. « être
> vide ». V. VACANT, VACATION, VACUITE;
Yes exactly. VAQUA much more likely than vacca.
>
> [English 'to be vacant/empty': no suggestion in the French of any form
> resembling 'vaqua' or 'vacca', whose gender would in any case be wrong
> for the etymology]
Why wouldn't it be feminine when this word is used or else about the
great vacations?
As I said. It is either magna vaqua in France, or it is the Magna Valca
the name of which he mistook because of the France one, or else it has
to do with the emptiness of the holidays, vacations perhaps indeed, or
the great void, which I mention as one other possibility but don't
define exactly, but cow? Come on! Vaqua is not vacca. It's not even
close but by homonym. jeez. It is not even the same root, this is
insane.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now I am charitably assuming that Jean didn't just make all these
> word-errors up, but got them from Michel Dufresne's 'Dictionnaire
> Nostradamus' (1989), instead of from the obvious early sources, the
> main ones of which are to be found at
>
> http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/dicos/
Would you be charitable enough to read the replies next time and reply
to them.
Jeez. Who gives a hoot about your charity of something that is taken
into consideration each time?
>
> which clearly show the falsity of most of Jean's proposed 'meanings'
> as listed above.
Which is refuted.
>
> True, he tends to blame electotranslator-error for much of the above,
Yes this is also explained.
> but, apart from the case of 'seur', no electrotranslator in the world
> is capable of producing the versions listed -- and the last four are
> in any case from his own *printed book*.
Please reply to the reply, nobody need your self-pity.
J.
[snipped further wallowing in fartitude, and lies about us]
ozzy...@hotmail.com
says...
tarot cards?
Something about each letter of the hebrew alphabet applied to each tarot card?
>
>Alef
>
>>
>> J.
>> > matthew winston
>
>
matthew winston
ozzy...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>>
>> On 11 Aug 2001 20:50:27 -0700, ozzy...@hotmail.com (matthewwinston)
>> wrote:
>
>Ah he could have adapted them one to another?
>
>
>Yeah, right.
>
>Well since I already provided the quote in the previous post let's wait
>and see. I really don't know what you can fiddle about on this one
>except that you think it could go both ways if I remember correctly.
>
date in the front like most books, so its a re-make of the oxford, the end of
the preface has the date June 1911) has some etymology in it lots of latin,
spanish and Old french in it.
The front of the book says exactly this on the cover.
(each line centered)
THE
CONCISE
OXFORD DICTIONARY
Adapted by
H.W and F.G FOWLER
from
THE OXFORD
DICTIONARY
What do you make of that Jean? what does the word "adapted" on the front of my
hundred year old dictionary mean?
>
>J.
>
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:30:08 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >Of course you must conclude that. But you must show me where I made an
> >error.
>
> Hang on! Around ten of them have been pointed out already -- some of
> which you yourself have now admitted -- and all in the first ten
> verses we examined.
>
> How many errors does it take to make an error?
>
> Ah well, since you seem to have forgotten it, here again is my summary
> of all your main linguistic errors in the first ten verses we looked
> at:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. On the basis of the very first ten or so verse-interpretations of
> Jean's that we examined here during July/August 2001 (I.17, I.63,
> III.13, II.28, V.92, IX.1, IX.1*, IX.2*,IX.3* and IX.4*) it became
> perfectly clear on both linguistic (see below) and historical grounds
> that no more than 20% of them at most can be considered potentially
> reliable (as opposed to the 100% that he was unwise enough to claim!).
>
> *All as printed in Jean's own published book 'Nostradamus: Neuvième
> Centurie' [JCL, 1999]
>
> In case anybody here has forgotten it, he gave 'blindness' instead of
> 'drought' for 'siccité', 'flowers' instead of 'scourges' for 'fleaux'
Yes this quatrain about siccité and is the same as the missing editions
we know we know. We shall see what it means and if it si scourges after
I assess it. What else.
> -- the result, in this case, of a failure to consult the original text
> -- 'on' instead of 'sure' for 'seur', 'peace' instead of 'rainbow' for
> 'Iris', 'Sagittarius' instead of 'coffer' for 'arche', 'will write'
> instead of 'will wander' for 'vaguera', 'delivered' instead of 'clear
> out' for 'vuidez', 'burnt' instead of 'looted' for 'saccagée'**, and
> 'emptiness/space' instead of 'cow' for 'vaqua' -- while CC (not all of
> whose views I necessarily otherwise share) additionally found at least
> two sets of historical circumstances that just didn't fit.
Yes all that we have been through. All that is perfectly ok as it is the
literal translation of what it actually may mean, not of what it
actually reads. All that you have failed to show an error BTW. Ha good,
we go again into detail. This time pay attention.
>
> ** ibid: p.41, lines 8-10.
>
> By way of detailed research, here now are OCRs of the definitions of
> each of the above words, as given in Dauzat's 'Dictionnaire
> étymologique' (Larousse, 1938), which covers all the known uses of the
> words in question back to at least the 11th century, not least as
> defined in all the known dictionaries back as far as the celebrated
> Estienne brothers of Nostradamus's own day:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> siccatif (1531, B.; rare jusqu’au XIXe s.), siccité (XVIe s.,
> Montaigne), empr. au lat. siccativus (III s., C. Aurelius), siccitas
> (rac. siccus, sec).
>
> [English 'dryness'/'drought': no mention in the French of anything
> meaning 'blindness'.]
>
> fléau (fiaiel, Xe s., Saint Léger; id. et flael, XIIe s.), du lat.
> flagellum, fouet, spécialisé pour le fléau articulé (IXe s., saint
> Jérôme); excussorium s’appliquait au fléau-bâton [Gilliéron]. Au fig.,
> d’après la métaphore du lat. cccl. flagellum Domini, châtiment envoyé
> par Dieu (trad. de la Bible).
> [English 'scourge': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'flowers'.]
Did I context this Peter? Did I? The minute you said it I checked and
saw you were right. It is the only place where you are right. But I have
admitted it since the beginning. Let's see the rest.
This quatrain, is THE mistake and the missing word in the editions
available at the time.
Let's hope this time you are careful of the reply for the rest Peter.
>
> sûr (seür, soür, XIIe s.), du lat. securus. Dér.: sûreté, d’après le
> lat. securitas (xve s., Commines). V. SÉCURITÉ.
>
> [English 'sure': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'on'.]
(Let's leave aside the one you didn't have on your list - sour and
rather focus on the one you had, surmarchera.)
1. SEURMARCHERA: I have shown that other use are possible and that words
that begin with seur as a prefix didn't have merely 2 definitions
(Nicot) but dozens. Your dictionary is not good, it doesn't mean that
the definitions we use aren't.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/seur.jpg
Many that are in use today: Seurmonter (not in Nicot of course, like
sacagement), became "surmonter" for example. Why would Nostradamus make
up a word secure-walk as a verb? Oh right, it is not secure-walk this is
an error of the printer. It is Secure then walk and the printer was
wrong. Ohh, sorry this is my mistake. It is clearly "seur marchera".
But in that sense the seur can makes sense still "marcher sur" as the
sur would in my example surmonter for instance. But yes, since it was
clearly apart, sorry, so it is ALSO possible that it means sister. No
doubt. Sister will walk by air water earth waves, hum... Doubtful. It is
reallu will walk over by, IMO, not one single person but the beginning
of gernerations doing just that.
But again, this one can go either way.
Like many can sometimes BTW. I doNt, say to people who think it is
another use of a word that they are wrong to use it that way if they
aren't I look into it and see they are using it in a way that they
could, and see they can be right.
Knowing how Nostradamus made up many words that didn't exist by modeling
on those that did. But it is not your groupies that can get that, only
people like maybe Claude can get things like that, if you stubbornly
refuse to acknowledge these realities. Doesn't change them, nor does it
change your motivations. But this one can also be something else,
granted.
>
> iris (XIIIe s., nom de fleur; arc-en-ciel, XVIIe s., Descartes), empr.
> au lat. iris (aux deux sens), mot grec; le sens anat. (XVIe s., Paré)
> vient du grec. Dér. : iriser (XVIII’ s., Buffon), -sation (XIXe s.).
>
> [English 'iris'/'rainbow': no mention in the French of anything
> meaning 'peace'.]
This indeed is again a literal translation, as indeed a rainbow is a
sign of peace much like the arch of alliance...
>
> arche, eccl., arche de Noé, etc. et techn. (XIIIe s.), du lat. arca,
> coffre, « arche » dans la Vulgate (= coffre dans le Centre et le Midi,
> où il est pop., comme l’it. et esp. arca).
>
> [English 'ark'/'coffer': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'Sagittarius', nor even 'archer'.]
Your own definition, (that I won't put hereafter again, if you made like
you ignored it it's your own problem), showed that "arche" came from
"arcus" as well, that it was as speculative to decide it is from arqua.
The first definition in fact in
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/arche.jpg is about arc-arcus. your
whole argument was a fallacy just because you wanted it to match some
event about a coffer, even if it eludes the whole rest of the quatrain.
>
> vaguer (vers 1230, B.), empr. au lat. vagari, aller çà et là, errer.
> V. VAGABOND.
>
> [English 'to wander': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'to
> write'.]
>
Yes and it was merely a potential literal translation and I have shown
that it can be used in that sense. in the first example given for
vaguant in the same source in
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/vagant.jpg.
This is not wrong Peter. This is just a word of the litteral
translation. Did you read the whole thing about this quatrain in our
books BTW? No. How can you judge from an untweaked electro-translation
of a literal translation?
> vide (vuide, voide, XIIe s.), du lat. vulg. *vocitus (it. vuoto), de
> la famille de vacuus, vide (cf. vocivus, vide, f1 s., Térence). Dér.:
> vider (vuidier, XIIe s., Enéas); vidange (wuidenghe, 1286, G.),
> -angeur (vui-, 168o, Richelet), -anger (xixe s., L.); videur (1332,
> G.); videlle, techn. (1812, Mozin); vidard (cheval) (1872, L.); vidure
> (fin xix’ s.); évider(esvuidier, XIIe s., Loherains), evidoir (1756,
> Encyci.), -dure (1812, Mozin); survider (1549, R. Est.); revider
> (1803, Boiste); V. DÉVIDER; vide-coq, bécasse (XIVe s., Modus),
> vide-bouteille (I56o, D. G., surnom),-poches (1823, Boiste), -pommés
> (1842, Mozin).
>
> [English 'empty': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'deliver' or 'delivered'.]
Oh yes this one... AGAIN. May I quote you from message-ID:
<3B7043AF...@michelnostradamus.org>
---------------
> >> > >>> 'delivered' instead of 'clear out' for 'vuidez',
>
> I have to admit -- looking more closely at your text -- that you
> actually got this one right. Apologies. The article will be revised
> next time I post it -- if I have to!
Phew. Thanks.
----------------
Alzheimer?
>
> saccager (XVIe Rab.), empr.à l’it. saccheggiare (dér. de sacco, V. SAC
> 2). Dér.: saccageur, -gement (vers 1550, P. Doré), saccage (1633,
> Peiresc).
>
> [English 'to sack/plunder/loot/pillage/ransack': no mention in the
> French of anything meaning 'to burn'.]
You have admitted that the modern word meant that (quote?), and I have
shown you, not only in your limited Nicot but out of other dictionaries
of the same epoch, that even the former form of the word, when there was
only one "c", and when saccage was written sacagement, meant,
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/sacager.jpg.
>
> vache (XIIe s., L.), du lat., vacca; fig., vache enragée (manger de
> la), 1842, Mozin, et les Misérables, 3e p., V, i; sens péjor. pop. fin
> XIXe s. (Sichs-V.), adj., xxe s. r- Dér. et comp.: vachette (petite
> vache, xvie s.; cuir, 1866, L.); vachotte (1877, L.), nom de diverses
> plantes broutées par les vaches.
>
> [English 'cow': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> 'emptiness, space'.]
>
> As for:
>
> vaquer (XIIIe s., Br. Latini, être vacant; s’occuper, xive s.,
> Bersuire, sens qui l’a emporté), empr. au lat. vacare, proprem. « être
> vide ». V. VACANT, VACATION, VACUITE;
Yes exactly. VAQUA much more likely than vacca.
>
> [English 'to be vacant/empty': no suggestion in the French of any form
> resembling 'vaqua' or 'vacca', whose gender would in any case be wrong
> for the etymology]
Why wouldn't it be feminine when this word is used or else about the
great vacations?
As I said. It is either magna vaqua in France, or it is the Magna Valca
the name of which he mistook because of the France one, or else it has
to do with the emptiness of the holidays, vacations perhaps indeed, or
the great void, which I mention as one other possibility but don't
define exactly, but cow? Come on! Vaqua is not vacca. It's not even
close but by homonym. jeez. It is not even the same root, this is
insane.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now I am charitably assuming that Jean didn't just make all these
> word-errors up, but got them from Michel Dufresne's 'Dictionnaire
> Nostradamus' (1989), instead of from the obvious early sources, the
> main ones of which are to be found at
>
> http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/dicos/
Would you be charitable enough to read the replies next time and reply
to them.
Jeez. Who gives a hoot about your charity of something that is taken
into consideration each time?
>
> which clearly show the falsity of most of Jean's proposed 'meanings'
> as listed above.
Which is refuted.
>
> True, he tends to blame electotranslator-error for much of the above,
Yes this is also explained.
> but, apart from the case of 'seur', no electrotranslator in the world
> is capable of producing the versions listed -- and the last four are
> in any case from his own *printed book*.
Please reply to the reply, nobody need your self-pity.
Mark
>
> > >But I must conclude then... if Nosty could NOT make an error about the
> > >prophetic work, then the errors must be yours. Unless of course Nosty
> > >DELIBERATELY used the WRONG words knowing that ONLY Michel Dufresne and
Jean
> > >would one day be able assign the correct meaning to them...
> >
> > The logic is impeccable!
>
> in relation to what i.e. something... real. Mark has to point to hwat
> besides siccité we may have missed and in what way we didn't correctly
> address the situation and read the replies..
>
> Otherwise any fool can pretend anything, hey Peter.
You won't bother to explain anything anyway... all you do is say "Yes we
talked about that", and "I've explained that before". :(
Jean Guernon
ozzy...@hotmail.com a écrit :
Hundred years is not enough to change anything. i doN,t see the object
of this amn dthe word adapted remains
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=adapt*1+0
adapted adjective from:
adapt verb to change (something or yourself) to suit different
conditions or uses
J.
> >
> >J.
> >
Jean Guernon
Mark a écrit :
Again you don't address the replies that prove that he doesn't know wha
the is talking about for everything but the first allegation. You just
licjk the big master.
But what can I expect from someone who knows nothing about the Seer but
Lemesuriades.
Except, don't address me anymore.
Ask Peter the know it all.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:03:52 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
> <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Or should we, perhaps, look critically at a few more of his alleged
> >'interpretations'?...
>
Peter you should address my reply to your first lies before I address
you second batch of lies.
J.
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>Well the thing is that in French adapter is a word thatdates 1279 comes
>from th latin adaptare and has for a meaning as the FIRST meaning of
>Adapter is réunir:
>(see attachment)
Well done. An actual dictionary quote, properly understood!
So now the question is, 'réunir quoi avec quoi'?
You imply that it's joining the verses one to another in the correct
order.
But all that Nostradamus says is that "In order that all these figures
might be more precisely collated by means of the sacred scriptures
with visible celestial phenomena -- i.e. in conjunction with Saturn,
Jupiter, Mars and so on -- as might be seen in greater detail by
applying various quartiles, I could have gone more deeply into my
calculations and adapted the one to the other."
Now, this seems to mean (a) that he could have adapted the figures (or
charts) with the visible celestial phenomena. This at least makes
contextual sense in the sentence quoted.
However, given that he uses the expression 'les uns' (masculine)
instead of 'les unes' (feminine), this might suggest (b) that he is
indeed referring to the 'quadrins' (quatrains) [OK, Mark]? Even in
this case, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that he could have
arranged them *in order* -- merely that he could have shown the
connections between them.
Though my guess is actually that, (c) by the time he got to the word
'uns', he had long since forgotten the gender of the nouns he was
referring back to much earlier in the sentence. This wouldn't have
been untypical of him, since he often lost track of his grammar, and
even of his overall sense, in such long and involved sentences.
In which case (a) is probably the correct interpretation.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>Well since I already provided the quote in the previous post let's wait
>and see. I really don't know what you can fiddle about on this one
>except that you think it could go both ways if I remember correctly.
Did it say anythihg about 'order'?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:37:13 GMT, Jean Guernon
>> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>>
>> >but what was
>> >the divination process, this flamme exigue sortant de solitude? Are you
>> >infering some drug?
>>
>> Did Nostradamus say he used a 'flamme exigue sortant de solitude'?
>
>Again, fiddling on details... Didn't he Peter?
He didn't *say* he did. Verses I.1 and I.2 are both in the third
person. They don't say 'je'.
>
>>
>> Or did he merely quote from Iamblichus's account of the prophetess at
>> Delphi in order to associate himself with the ancient oracles?
>
>Err, the reason is his. But anyway, so?
So there's no reason to say that HE sat on a tripod, saw a flame and
so on. In fact in his writings he frequently says '*as though* on the
bronze tripod'. The references seem to be purely allegorical, in other
words...
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> Please quote the exact French, and pinpoint the bit where he talks
>> about their 'order'.
>>
>
>He could have put them one after the other. What do you call that?
Please quote the exact French words with which he said that. Unless,
of course, they are merely your own...
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> sûr (seür, soür, XIIe s.), du lat. securus. Dér.: sûreté, d’après le
>> lat. securitas (xve s., Commines). V. SÉCURITÉ.
>>
>> [English 'sure': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'on'.]
>
>(Let's leave aside the one you didn't have on your list - sour and
>rather focus on the one you had, surmarchera.)
>
>1. SEURMARCHERA: I have shown that other use are possible and that words
>that begin with seur as a prefix didn't have merely 2 definitions
>(Nicot) but dozens. Your dictionary is not good, it doesn't mean that
>the definitions we use aren't.
>http://www.michelnostradamus.org/seur.jpg
>
>Many that are in use today: Seurmonter (not in Nicot of course, like
>sacagement), became "surmonter" for example. Why would Nostradamus make
>up a word secure-walk as a verb? Oh right, it is not secure-walk this is
>an error of the printer. It is Secure then walk and the printer was
>wrong. Ohh, sorry this is my mistake. It is clearly "seur marchera".
>
>But in that sense the seur can makes sense still "marcher sur" as the
>sur would in my example surmonter for instance.
'seur' never means 'sur' by itself, so far as I am aware.
> But yes, since it was
>clearly apart, sorry, so it is ALSO possible that it means sister. No
>doubt. Sister will walk by air water earth waves, hum... Doubtful. It is
>reallu will walk over by, IMO, not one single person but the beginning
>of gernerations doing just that.
>
>But again, this one can go either way.
>
>Like many can sometimes BTW. I doNt, say to people who think it is
>another use of a word that they are wrong to use it that way if they
>aren't I look into it and see they are using it in a way that they
>could, and see they can be right.
>
>Knowing how Nostradamus made up many words that didn't exist by modeling
>on those that did. But it is not your groupies that can get that, only
>people like maybe Claude can get things like that, if you stubbornly
>refuse to acknowledge these realities. Doesn't change them, nor does it
>change your motivations. But this one can also be something else,
>granted.
So that's at least *three* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> fléau (fiaiel, Xe s., Saint Léger; id. et flael, XIIe s.), du lat.
>> flagellum, fouet, spécialisé pour le fléau articulé (IXe s., saint
>> Jérôme); excussorium s’appliquait au fléau-bâton [Gilliéron]. Au fig.,
>> d’après la métaphore du lat. cccl. flagellum Domini, châtiment envoyé
>> par Dieu (trad. de la Bible).
>> [English 'scourge': no mention in the French of anything meaning
>> 'flowers'.]
>
>Did I context this Peter? Did I? The minute you said it I checked and
>saw you were right. It is the only place where you are right. But I have
>admitted it since the beginning. Let's see the rest.
So that's at least *two* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> In case anybody here has forgotten it, he gave 'blindness' instead of
>> 'drought' for 'siccité', 'flowers' instead of 'scourges' for 'fleaux'
>
>Yes this quatrain about siccité and is the same as the missing editions
>we know we know. We shall see what it means and if it si scourges after
>I assess it. What else.
So that was at least *one* error, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> vaguer (vers 1230, B.), empr. au lat. vagari, aller за et lа, errer.
>> V. VAGABOND.
>>
>> [English 'to wander': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'to
>> write'.]
>>
>
>Yes and it was merely a potential literal translation and I have shown
>that it can be used in that sense. in the first example given for
>vaguant in the same source in
>http://www.michelnostradamus.org/vagant.jpg.
>
>This is not wrong Peter. This is just a word of the litteral
>translation. Did you read the whole thing about this quatrain in our
>books BTW? No. How can you judge from an untweaked electro-translation
>of a literal translation?
No reputable dictionary gives 'write' for 'vaguer'.
So that's at least *six* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> iris (XIIIe s., nom de fleur; arc-en-ciel, XVIIe s., Descartes), empr.
>> au lat. iris (aux deux sens), mot grec; le sens anat. (XVIe s., Paré)
>> vient du grec. Dér. : iriser (XVIII’ s., Buffon), -sation (XIXe s.).
>>
>> [English 'iris'/'rainbow': no mention in the French of anything
>> meaning 'peace'.]
>
>This indeed is again a literal translation, as indeed a rainbow is a
>sign of peace much like the arch of alliance...
So the word doesn't mean 'peace'.
So that's at least *four* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> arche, eccl., arche de Noé, etc. et techn. (XIIIe s.), du lat. arca,
>> coffre, « arche » dans la Vulgate (= coffre dans le Centre et le Midi,
>> où il est pop., comme l’it. et esp. arca).
>>
>> [English 'ark'/'coffer': no mention in the French of anything meaning
>> 'Sagittarius', nor even 'archer'.]
>
>Your own definition, (that I won't put hereafter again, if you made like
>you ignored it it's your own problem), showed that "arche" came from
>"arcus" as well, that it was as speculative to decide it is from arqua.
>The first definition in fact in
>http://www.michelnostradamus.org/arche.jpg is about arc-arcus. your
>whole argument was a fallacy just because you wanted it to match some
>event about a coffer, even if it eludes the whole rest of the quatrain.
Nicot: Thresor de la langue française (1606)
arche (41)
Arche, ou Coffre, Arca, Et en matiere de navires, Arche, est certaine
closture ou boite faite entour les escoutilles de la pompe, pour
empescher qu'aucune chose ne chocque ou heurte contre ladite pompe,
pour laquelle chose plus au clair entendre, voyez Pompe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicto: Thresor de la langue française (1606)
arche (41)
Arche à garder habillemens, Arca vestiaria.
Petite arche, ou coffret, Arcula.
¶ Les arches d'un pont de pierre, Arcus, Fornices, vel Fornicationes,
B.
Edifices faits par arches et piles, AEdificia pilatim extructa, B.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing about bows, archers or Sagittarius. Obviously it didn't mean
it at the time.
So that's at least *five* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> vide (vuide, voide, XIIe s.), du lat. vulg. *vocitus (it. vuoto), de
>> la famille de vacuus, vide (cf. vocivus, vide, f1 s., Térence). Dér.:
>> vider (vuidier, XIIe s., Enéas); vidange (wuidenghe, 1286, G.),
>> -angeur (vui-, 168o, Richelet), -anger (xixe s., L.); videur (1332,
>> G.); videlle, techn. (1812, Mozin); vidard (cheval) (1872, L.); vidure
>> (fin xix’ s.); évider(esvuidier, XIIe s., Loherains), evidoir (1756,
>> Encyci.), -dure (1812, Mozin); survider (1549, R. Est.); revider
>> (1803, Boiste); V. DÉVIDER; vide-coq, bécasse (XIVe s., Modus),
>> vide-bouteille (I56o, D. G., surnom),-poches (1823, Boiste), -pommés
>> (1842, Mozin).
>>
>> [English 'empty': no mention in the French of anything meaning
>> 'deliver' or 'delivered'.]
>
>Oh yes this one... AGAIN. May I quote you from message-ID:
><3B7043AF...@michelnostradamus.org>
>---------------
>> >> > >>> 'delivered' instead of 'clear out' for 'vuidez',
>>
>> I have to admit -- looking more closely at your text -- that you
>> actually got this one right. Apologies. The article will be revised
>> next time I post it -- if I have to!
Quoted totally out of context. Never did get the hang of that, did
you? :(
My admission referred to your interpretation of 'assouvie/assomée' in
the same verse (IX.2), not to 'vuidez' -- which, as you can see from
the above and any other reputable source, is hopelessly wrong.
So that's at least *seven* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> saccager (XVIe Rab.), empr.à l’it. saccheggiare (dér. de sacco, V. SAC
>> 2). Dér.: saccageur, -gement (vers 1550, P. Doré), saccage (1633,
>> Peiresc).
>>
>> [English 'to sack/plunder/loot/pillage/ransack': no mention in the
>> French of anything meaning 'to burn'.]
>
>You have admitted that the modern word meant that (quote?), and I have
>shown you, not only in your limited Nicot but out of other dictionaries
>of the same epoch, that even the former form of the word, when there was
>only one "c", and when saccage was written sacagement, meant,
>http://www.michelnostradamus.org/sacager.jpg.
'Saccager' (however spelt) *always* involves looting. You have failed
to show that any looting took place inside Thiers' house.
So that's *eight* errors, then?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>You have a good sequence of Qs. For one time you brought something usefull.
Not mine. Brind'Amour's.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> vache (XIIe s., L.), du lat., vacca; fig., vache enragée (manger de
>> la), 1842, Mozin, et les Misérables, 3e p., V, i; sens péjor. pop. fin
>> XIXe s. (Sichs-V.), adj., xxe s. r- Dér. et comp.: vachette (petite
>> vache, xvie s.; cuir, 1866, L.); vachotte (1877, L.), nom de diverses
>> plantes broutées par les vaches.
>>
>> [English 'cow': no mention in the French of anything meaning
>> 'emptiness, space'.]
>>
>> As for:
>>
>> vaquer (XIIIe s., Br. Latini, être vacant; s’occuper, xive s.,
>> Bersuire, sens qui l’a emporté), empr. au lat. vacare, proprem. « être
>> vide ». V. VACANT, VACATION, VACUITE;
>
>Yes exactly. VAQUA much more likely than vacca.
>
>>
>> [English 'to be vacant/empty': no suggestion in the French of any form
>> resembling 'vaqua' or 'vacca', whose gender would in any case be wrong
>> for the etymology]
>
>Why wouldn't it be feminine when this word is used or else about the
>great vacations?
The word used about the 'great vacations' -- sorry, the summer
holidays -- is 'vacations'. Dauzat has shown you the other possible
noun formed from 'vaquer' -- 'vacuité'. Both of them are spelt with a
'c': 'vacca/vaqua' is not one of them.
'Vacation' is feminine because it ends in '-ion'. 'Vacuité' is
feminine because so do all nouns in '-é' (from Latin '-tatis') of this
type. But the only other French noun that comes from the same root as
Latin 'vacare' is 'vacuum' -- and that is masculine. So would
Nostradamus's word be, if that was what it meant.
Which is as good a sign as any that it didn't.
>
>As I said. It is either magna vaqua in France, or it is the Magna Valca
>the name of which he mistook because of the France one,
Well, both of those are possibilities.
> or else it has
>to do with the emptiness of the holidays, vacations perhaps indeed, or
>the great void, which I mention as one other possibility but don't
>define exactly, but cow? Come on! Vaqua is not vacca. It's not even
>close but by homonym. jeez. It is not even the same root, this is
>insane.
Not only is it the same root. If it isn't the place-name (which it
probably is) it is the *same word*, and certainly not some word
meaning 'vide'.
So that's at least *nine* errors, then?
If you are always right 'except when proven otherwise', how often do
we have to prove it otherwise to prove it otherwise?
--
Peter
Mark
>
> Except, don't address me anymore.
As you say, my lord.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:08:42 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >Well the thing is that in French adapter is a word thatdates 1279 comes
> >from th latin adaptare and has for a meaning as the FIRST meaning of
> >Adapter is réunir:
> >(see attachment)
>
> Well done. An actual dictionary quote, properly understood!
>
> So now the question is, 'réunir quoi avec quoi'?
>
> You imply that it's joining the verses one to another in the correct
> order.
>
> But all that Nostradamus says is that "In order that all these figures
> might be more precisely collated by means of the sacred scriptures
> with visible celestial phenomena -- i.e. in conjunction with Saturn,
> Jupiter, Mars and so on -- as might be seen in greater detail by
> applying various quartiles, I could have gone more deeply into my
> calculations and adapted the one to the other."
Wrong Peter, it is not by various quartiles, one must read "plus à plain
par aucuns quatrains", because he if had talked about figures, adapté
would have been adaptée, feminine. Figure is feminine. He is obviously
talking about the quatrains because quadrins is about quatrains. not an
about quadrants (3 letters wrong???). A quadrin, a poem of 4 lines. He
is talking about the quatrains. (Notwithstanding your remark below about
les uns avec les autres, the quadrins, not the figures Peter, jeez. You
pretend he meant the figures but used the masculine. Never seen such bad
faith.)
----------
113. Que toutes ces figures sont iustement adaptées par les diurnes
lettres aux choses célestes visibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne,
Iupiter, & Mars, & les autres conioincts, comme plus a plain par aucuns
quadrins l'on pourra voir. Ie eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus
profondement, & adapté les vns auecques les autres.
All these things are adapted exactly to the divine characters and the
visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and others in conjunction,
as one could have seen it more amply in some quatrains. I could have
done more and could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
----------
And 114 is very important because it tells you why he didn't join them
one to another. I don't get that you dismiss that jsut to make a stupid
false point.
----------
114. Mais voyant ô Serenissime Roy, que quelqu'vns de la sensure
trouueront
difficulté, qui sera cause de retirer ma plume à mon repos nocturne:
But seeing, oh most serene monarch, that censorship could cause me
difficulties, I withdrew my quill from the paper in order to dedicate
myself to my nocturnal rest:
-----------
The other extract about also speak of the reasons why he didn't go
through with more clarity about the datation of the quatrains i.e. that
if he did that he would be in trouble...
-----------
73. que si ie voulais à vn chacun quatrain mettre le dénombrement du
temps, se pourrait faire: mais à tous ne serait aggreable, ne moins les
interpréter iusques à ce Sire, que vostre Molesté m'aye octroyé ample
puissance pour ce faire, pour ne donner cause aux calomniateurs de me
mordre.
so much that, if I wanted it, I could date each of quatrains: but the
thing would not be pleasant to all; or to specify their sense, but it
would be necessary that your Majesty first gave me the whole
authorization, in order not to give to my slanderers the opportunity to
tear me apart.
------------
>
> Now, this seems to mean (a) that he could have adapted the figures (or
> charts) with the visible celestial phenomena. This at least makes
> contextual sense in the sentence quoted.
I know you want to show you know better than all exegetists, but you are
wrong here, obviously. Take heed.
>
> However, given that he uses the expression 'les uns' (masculine)
> instead of 'les unes' (feminine), this might suggest (b) that he is
> indeed referring to the 'quadrins' (quatrains) [OK, Mark]? Even in
Yes Marc the quatrains!!! Geez, so you know it is abotu that. What is
this the quartile bullshit above then?
> this case, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that he could have
> arranged them *in order* -- merely that he could have shown the
> connections between them.
No if you take the interpretation of Lemesurioer for adapted, but you
see he adapted them in the first sense that he did join them one to
another, does, and that's what he said.
>
> Though my guess is actually that, (c) by the time he got to the word
> 'uns', he had long since forgotten the gender of the nouns he was
Bwhahahaha
> referring back to much earlier in the sentence. This wouldn't have
> been untypical of him, since he often lost track of his grammar, and
> even of his overall sense, in such long and involved sentences.
>
> In which case (a) is probably the correct interpretation.
> --
So are you still saying that Nostradamus wrote it for Lemesurier o that
my interpretation is valid as well?
Are you saying I am right everyone else is wrong so that it could be
another missing piece of his puzzle about comparative horoscopy perhaps,
or are you saying maybe Guernon is right in that one but not in so many
words?
I guess bad faith will take over your reply.
J.
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
comme plus a plain par aucuns quadrins l'on pourra voir. Ie
eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus profondement, & adapté les vns
auecques les
autres. Mais voyant ô Serenissime Roy, que quelqu'vns de la sensure
Jean Guernon
In other words we won't know exactly what he used to get near God.
No doubt about this, he said it himself.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Given that he speaks of having had the capacity to date them in an
earlier statement of that letter and here that he could have joined them
one to another, he certainly is not speaking about anything else. What
else is he talking about?
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Well siccité dfid bring about another error in the litteral translation
which is iris. Given that there is a drtought, of coruse, iris would be
the rainbow it n its proper sense more likely. Again, the litteral
sense. But twarted here by the word siccité.
> --
>
> Peter
Yes, well looking back more than that. Iris as I have said.
All in 1,63.
Fleaux wasn't in any editions we had at hand.
But this is ¸*NOT* an error from us.
Yourself didn't have the editions with fleaux at the time, right?
And we put the link to the actual editions with the translation by Leoni
don't we?
Yes, maybe we should just leave that, after all if people want further
explanations, they will ask. Or will buy the books. Good idea Peter.
Thanks for all for the confusion without the literal translation (of the
99% accurate one). Yes it will take less bandwidth and will take less
time to correct. And knit picky people that insults and slur buy the
same token won't have as much chance to "bite me" as N said.
Another one in 1,63 is "seur marchera", which was surmarchera in the bad
edition we had in the beginning, and it can be both way as I have shown,
if you followed, but after thinking about it could be "will walk with
certainty" in the heaven in the earth en the wave etc... Both are
possible.
But the rest, when will YOU apologize fgor the rest Peter?
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Nope. Your count is false. number two wasn't an error.
Now this, can go either way. But maybe this one is sureness. I must
admit it is likely after sleeping on it.
J.
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
This error goes with siccité. Same error as the one.
J.
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Not at all Peter. This is Arcus, the same arcus as the bow.
J.
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 02:14:19 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >> vaguer (vers 1230, B.), empr. au lat. vagari, aller çà et là, errer.
> >> V. VAGABOND.
> >>
> >> [English 'to wander': no mention in the French of anything meaning 'to
> >> write'.]
> >>
> >
> >Yes and it was merely a potential literal translation and I have shown
> >that it can be used in that sense. in the first example given for
> >vaguant in the same source in
> >http://www.michelnostradamus.org/vagant.jpg.
> >
> >This is not wrong Peter. This is just a word of the litteral
> >translation. Did you read the whole thing about this quatrain in our
> >books BTW? No. How can you judge from an untweaked electro-translation
> >of a literal translation?
>
> No reputable dictionary gives 'write' for 'vaguer'.
>
> So that's at least *six* errors, then?
> --
>
> Peter<
Not at all Peter, this is litteral translation again, that people will
never see again on the net thanks to your bad faith.
J.
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
Can't quarrel with that, then.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
*Probably* he is talking about what I suggested, if you read his
statement *in context*. But I realise that the concept of 'context' is
rather beyond you when you are in this dogmatic pontifical mood (as,
alas, you are most of the time these days). As for the idea of
probability (rather than absolute certitude), well...
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:08:42 GMT, Jean Guernon
>> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Well the thing is that in French adapter is a word thatdates 1279 comes
>> >from th latin adaptare and has for a meaning as the FIRST meaning of
>> >Adapter is réunir:
>> >(see attachment)
>>
>> Well done. An actual dictionary quote, properly understood!
>>
>> So now the question is, 'réunir quoi avec quoi'?
>>
>> You imply that it's joining the verses one to another in the correct
>> order.
>>
>> But all that Nostradamus says is that "In order that all these figures
>> might be more precisely collated by means of the sacred scriptures
>> with visible celestial phenomena -- i.e. in conjunction with Saturn,
>> Jupiter, Mars and so on -- as might be seen in greater detail by
>> applying various quartiles, I could have gone more deeply into my
>> calculations and adapted the one to the other."
>
>Wrong Peter, it is not by various quartiles, one must read "plus à plain
>par aucuns quatrains", because he if had talked about figures, adapté
>would have been adaptée, feminine. Figure is feminine. He is obviously
>talking about the quatrains because quadrins is about quatrains. not an
>about quadrants (3 letters wrong???).
How obviously? Do you have a dictionary reference for that?
>A quadrin, a poem of 4 lines.
Reference?
Nicot: Thresor de la langue française (1606)
quadrin (527)
Quadrin, Un liard, Teruncium, vel Teruncius.
(That's a farthing, BTW)
However, 192 years later, if we alter the spelling slightly...
Dictionnaire de L'Académie française (1798)
QUADRAIN (2:391)
QUADRAIN. Voyez Quatrain.
So it looks as if the jury is out on that one. However, you may be
right that it's just a misspelling. The translation will be adjusted
accordingly...
Done.
> He
>is talking about the quatrains. (Notwithstanding your remark below about
>les uns avec les autres, the quadrins, not the figures Peter, jeez. You
>pretend he meant the figures but used the masculine. Never seen such bad
>faith.)
I explained my reasons for suggesting that. But there's not a hell of
a lot of point in explaining reasons around here, is there? I mean
'reason' implies rationality...
>
>----------
>113. Que toutes ces figures sont iustement adaptées par les diurnes
>lettres aux choses célestes visibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne,
>Iupiter, & Mars, & les autres conioincts, comme plus a plain par aucuns
>quadrins l'on pourra voir. Ie eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus
>profondement, & adapté les vns auecques les autres.
>
>All these things are adapted exactly to the divine characters and the
>visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and others in conjunction,
>as one could have seen it more amply in some quatrains. I could have
>done more and could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
He doesn't say "I could have done more and could have joined these
quatrains one to the other."
He says "I would have calculated more thoroughly and adapted the one
to the other."
You're determined to twist the words to mean what you want them to
mean, aren't you -- you who, paradoxically, keep insisting that they
are 'sacred'?
The masculine 'uns' does indeed suggests that he is talking about the
'quadrins', but since the sentence starts by talking about *adapting*
the 'figures' to the 'visible celestial things', not the quatrains to
the quatrains, it seems reasonable to assume that the former
'adaptation' is what he is still talking about, and that he's simply
lost his grammatical way -- as he quite often does. (That's what
careful, academic textual analysis is all about.)
However, the word 'reasonable' assumes rationality, and that seems to
be in pretty short supply around Quebec at the moment...
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
No word 'order' at all, then.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:03:52 +0100, Peter Lemesurier
>> <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Or should we, perhaps, look critically at a few more of his alleged
>> >'interpretations'?...
>>
>
>Peter you should address my reply to your first lies before I address
>you second batch of lies.
Now which 'lies' would that be, I wonder?
Ah -- the one where I said "To give him due credit, the verses in
between don't seem to have too many major errors"?
Yes, I suppose that WAS a bit rash...
Perhaps I should look rather more closely at that...
Anyway, folks, you've now had ample opportunity to see what we're up
against. I forget how many times he's called me a 'liar' in the past
fortnight -- to say nothing of the other perfectly reasonable people
who have suffered similarly -- could it be less than 50, or more than
50? And that's supposed to be the 'rational discussion' that he wants
us to join in!
'The only one alive who has all the correct interpretations of the
verses and letters', eh? I suspect you'd get more rationality out of a
6-year-old.
[What Jean's publisher is thinking if he's reading these posts I dread
to think: publishing contracts usually forbid authors to do anything
to dicredit or reduce the sales of their own works!...]
So there we are, Jean. You've shown beyond all doubt just how much
'rational discussion' you're capable of. All I had to do was provoke
you a little and question your delusions of grandeur. So now it's back
in the cage with you.
Re-plonk! (It might be permanent this time.)
--
Peter
Jean Guernon
Well yes, I wish not only that you would do just that for things that
haven't even been "rationally" reviewed on site after untweaked
electronic translations, or things like editions that "rationally"
weren't even available, but also that you would not pretend that I am
totally off and wrong on the letter when I say that he said that they
weren't joined together for instance, and this is merely the tip of the
iceberg.
Your reasons here are way more complex in reasoning than any
distanciation for whatever divergence you may have with my/our
difference of appreciation on the possible meaning of words in
quatrains, at least those already analyzed, and to see that you dare
come back with your pretense of pseudo-errors when you have the texts to
prove the validity of our take in front of your eyes really is a deeper
bad faith.
>
> >
> >----------
> >113. Que toutes ces figures sont iustement adaptées par les diurnes
> >lettres aux choses célestes visibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne,
> >Iupiter, & Mars, & les autres conioincts, comme plus a plain par aucuns
> >quadrins l'on pourra voir. Ie eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus
> >profondement, & adapté les vns auecques les autres.
> >
> >All these things are adapted exactly to the divine characters and the
> >visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and others in conjunction,
> >as one could have seen it more amply in some quatrains. I could have
> >done more and could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
>
> He doesn't say "I could have done more and could have joined these
> quatrains one to the other."
>
> He says "I would have calculated more thoroughly and adapted the one
> to the other."
Adapted, here, Peter, in French, is joined. He did not avoid adapting
them in the sense you talk about, he just didn't put them one after the
other.
>
> You're determined to twist the words to mean what you want them to
> mean, aren't you -- you who, paradoxically, keep insisting that they
> are 'sacred'?
No Peter. You won't get me to say yes prematurely so that you get to say
ha he said yes to the first part.
No, for the first accusation that should be directed at you.
Yes, about the nature of the prophetic work, but that's not the object
here.
>
> The masculine 'uns' does indeed suggests that he is talking about the
> 'quadrins', but since the sentence starts by talking about *adapting*
> the 'figures' to the 'visible celestial things', not the quatrains to
> the quatrains, it seems reasonable to assume that the former
> 'adaptation' is what he is still talking about, and that he's simply
> lost his grammatical way -- as he quite often does. (That's what
> careful, academic textual analysis is all about.)
"Adaptation" is feminine.
Indeed, the dual use of the word adapter in its two senses in the same
sentence can indeed be confusing for an Anglophone. It hadn't occurred
to me. Maybe I came too hard on you for this one, but was it as
unjustified and as hard as you had jumped on me?
>
> However, the word 'reasonable' assumes rationality, and that seems to
> be in pretty short supply around Quebec at the moment...
Yes oftentimes I do react with a lot of the same contempt I am served.
Yes I should be above all that. Dialog certainly isn't very rational
when spiked with puns. I guess that initial violence in an argument does
give the tone of the retort(ion?).
J.
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Well not per se, but joined yes, but by now you should know.
J.
Jean Guernon
How convenient after you have ignored mny replies and try to pretend to
be adding lies after lies. Anyway, I have decided, given how bad you
have treated my first untweaked translation of what was in fact litteral
translation, to take them away and leave only the interpretations.
If peopple want to know more about the meaning of the verses, they will
ask, and if they are not insulting like you are, they will get an
answer.
Once I have done the work of putting on the proper editions and have
properly assessed a good tweaked and select translation of the litteral
translation, I will put it up again for all to see within the quatrains.
Of course meanwhile I will have to take away from my site in the
editions anything that comes from you on the site of Mario. That goes
without say given your bad faith.
Me I am happy iof that oputcome since you can only try to put poison in
the work of the seer, since you cannot stomach the answers to your
ridicule accusations and repeat your *lies* that I am still wrong when I
prove you that you are the one that is, or that there are some case both
where possibilities remain.
Always, you still *lie* and say that it is not so, even going so far as
comptablizing these errors that are yours, as if they were mine.
I am not dreaming that, it is here for the world to see, along with your
bad faith.
As for my editior, the way you treat the most colossal work ever done on
the seer while you despise the prophecies, I doubt that he will think
that your lies make him sell less and if it does I hope he sues you.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
No it doesn't always involve looting and I have shown you taht it
doesn't.
Your bad faith, and your error, hence your lie, once again.
J.
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 02:14:19 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >> vache (XIIe s., L.), du lat., vacca; fig., vache enragée (manger de
> >> la), 1842, Mozin, et les Misérables, 3e p., V, i; sens péjor. pop. fin
> >> XIXe s. (Sichs-V.), adj., xxe s. r- Dér. et comp.: vachette (petite
> >> vache, xvie s.; cuir, 1866, L.); vachotte (1877, L.), nom de diverses
> >> plantes broutées par les vaches.
> >>
> >> [English 'cow': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> >> 'emptiness, space'.]
> >>
> >> As for:
> >>
> >> vaquer (XIIIe s., Br. Latini, être vacant; s’occuper, xive s.,
> >> Bersuire, sens qui l’a emporté), empr. au lat. vacare, proprem. « être
> >> vide ». V. VACANT, VACATION, VACUITE;
> >
> >Yes exactly. VAQUA much more likely than vacca.
> >
> >>
> >> [English 'to be vacant/empty': no suggestion in the French of any form
> >> resembling 'vaqua' or 'vacca', whose gender would in any case be wrong
> >> for the etymology]
> >
> >Why wouldn't it be feminine when this word is used or else about the
> >great vacations?
>
> The word used about the 'great vacations' -- sorry, the summer
> holidays -- is 'vacations'. Dauzat has shown you the other possible
> noun formed from 'vaquer' -- 'vacuité'. Both of them are spelt with a
> 'c': 'vacca/vaqua' is not one of them.
>
It could be a participle in that sense.
But that concept is stranger to you of course.
> 'Vacation' is feminine because it ends in '-ion'. 'Vacuité' is
> feminine because so do all nouns in '-é' (from Latin '-tatis') of this
> type. But the only other French noun that comes from the same root as
> Latin 'vacare' is 'vacuum' -- and that is masculine. So would
> Nostradamus's word be, if that was what it meant.
>
> Which is as good a sign as any that it didn't.
As I say in my book, it is probably aboiut Maga Vaqua the France
location, or else Magna Valca, the Ravene location. But you take the
little meaning in the litteral translation and try to destroy the whole
work that is given to the people for reflexion (it's not there anymore
so you can't harm it further and will have to discuss the real
substance, the interpretations), which is merely an obcservation of
possible meanings before one analyzez the verse, merely becasue you are
not interested in discussion, you are only interested in your take and
destroy anyone else. you dont, even aknowledge when youare wrong but
rather accuse the one that proov es it of being werong over and over
again.
>
> >
> >As I said. It is either magna vaqua in France, or it is the Magna Valca
> >the name of which he mistook because of the France one,
>
> Well, both of those are possibilities.
Well, why don,t you day that i say that. There is no error there is
there?
I am the one that found that. It was for you to see in the book. But you
have to put it down even if you can fear fro yours, sincce it ies in
French, but you feel threatened. "What if he made it in English,
improved! Or even if he explaisn the quatrains as prophecies, and not
fallacies!". You would be screwed hey Peter?
>
> > or else it has
> >to do with the emptiness of the holidays, vacations perhaps indeed, or
> >the great void, which I mention as one other possibility but don't
> >define exactly, but cow? Come on! Vaqua is not vacca. It's not even
> >close but by homonym. jeez. It is not even the same root, this is
> >insane.
>
> Not only is it the same root. If it isn't the place-name (which it
> probably is) it is the *same word*, and certainly not some word
> meaning 'vide'.
If it is a french word, it is is from "vaquer", not from "vache".
Otherwise it woudl be written vacca.
>
> So that's at least *nine* errors, then?
Jeez what a jackass you can be, hey?
>
> If you are always right 'except when proven otherwise', how often do
> we have to prove it otherwise to prove it otherwise?
You have to actually prove somnething, not say you have and count it.
All those errors *you* did and I didn't count, you counted for me.
What can I say. You are too cheap to elevate yourself enough to
appreciate the work of the seer.
J.
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 19:01:57 -0700, "Rino" <mi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >You have a good sequence of Qs. For one time you brought something usefull.
LOL
>
> Not mine. Brind'Amour's.
Ah...
> --
>
> Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 02:14:19 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>
> >> vide (vuide, voide, XIIe s.), du lat. vulg. *vocitus (it. vuoto), de
> >> la famille de vacuus, vide (cf. vocivus, vide, f1 s., Térence). Dér.:
> >> vider (vuidier, XIIe s., Enéas); vidange (wuidenghe, 1286, G.),
> >> -angeur (vui-, 168o, Richelet), -anger (xixe s., L.); videur (1332,
> >> G.); videlle, techn. (1812, Mozin); vidard (cheval) (1872, L.); vidure
> >> (fin xix’ s.); évider(esvuidier, XIIe s., Loherains), evidoir (1756,
> >> Encyci.), -dure (1812, Mozin); survider (1549, R. Est.); revider
> >> (1803, Boiste); V. DÉVIDER; vide-coq, bécasse (XIVe s., Modus),
> >> vide-bouteille (I56o, D. G., surnom),-poches (1823, Boiste), -pommés
> >> (1842, Mozin).
> >>
> >> [English 'empty': no mention in the French of anything meaning
> >> 'deliver' or 'delivered'.]
> >
> >Oh yes this one... AGAIN. May I quote you from message-ID:
> ><3B7043AF...@michelnostradamus.org>
> >---------------
> >> >> > >>> 'delivered' instead of 'clear out' for 'vuidez',
> >>
> >> I have to admit -- looking more closely at your text -- that you
> >> actually got this one right. Apologies. The article will be revised
> >> next time I post it -- if I have to!
>
> Quoted totally out of context. Never did get the hang of that, did
> you? :(
>
> My admission referred to your interpretation of 'assouvie/assomée' in
> the same verse (IX.2), not to 'vuidez' -- which, as you can see from
> the above and any other reputable source, is hopelessly wrong.
>
> So that's at least *seven* errors, then?
> --
>
> Peter
Oh yes this one startled me, the only one I haven't readdressed, I
couldn't believe it, you accusing me of falsifying even your
messages.... but hadn't had time to look into it since I was
rearranging my site because of you.
Just now here is the id of your message on that:
Message-ID: <93lvmtco2684uevqv...@4ax.com>
Now, I won't post the whole message in appendix, you have the id. If you
look (of course) at
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=93lvmtco2684uevqv...@4ax.com
we see where you clearly say, quote:
---------------
>> > >>> 'delivered' instead of 'clear out' for 'vuidez',
I have to admit -- looking more closely at your text -- that you
actually got this one right. Apologies. The article will be revised
next time I post it -- if I have to!
-----------------
End of quote.
Now I am supposed to know you dont, mean that but something before that,
where I you admit was right. Well at leat you are not dishonest with
everything.
This vuider is the only remaining ones even if ytou ran like a rabbit as
usual that I apparently haven't *re*addressed in detail.
Well the entry in our Nostradamus disctionary that I quoteand that you
dispute says
Du verbe vuider: 1. faire évacuer, délivrer.
(I must say, this is so cheap, to pretend to say we are not right on
witht he meaning of this word as a low blow, from anyone who pretends
himself to be an exegetist, it is to puke.)
Jean Nicot's Thresor de la langue française
http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/TLF.pg.sh?PID=672
Vuider et porter dehors, Egerere.
Vuider les boyaux, Exenterare.
Vuider et desemplir, Explere, Deplere.
Vuider et purger vieux fossez, Tergere fossas veteres.
[snip] etc. (Therse are the first ones, I snip 20 entries, most that say
about the same thing, some that talk about a lawsuit.)
This is clearly to empty something, or some place from something.
To free something, or some place from whatever is there.
vuidé
Vuidé, Euacuatus, Inanitus, Exinanitus.
Now the other one
http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ACAD1694.pg.sh?POBJECT=1361
Vuider (VUIDE)
Vuider. v. act. Rendre vuide. Vuider un sac, un tonneau. vuider un
grenier. vuider les prisons. vuider des cruches. vuider la volaille
qu'on veut manger, C'est en tirer les boyaux, le gesier, &c. Vuider un
oiseau, en termes de Fauconnerie, c'est le purger.
Same thing, to purge something, how more eloquent can it be?
You are a cheapo, a very biaised cheapo with a grudge against anyone
that sees the prophecies as something unique, a cheapo that shouldn't be
assigned to the Seer. But what can anyone do?
J.
ozzy...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:18:08 GMT, Jean Guernon
>> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:08:42 GMT, Jean Guernon
>> >> <jgue...@michelnostradamus.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >----------
>> >113. Que toutes ces figures sont iustement adaptées par les diurnes
>> >lettres aux choses célestes visibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne,
>> >Iupiter, & Mars, & les autres conioincts, comme plus a plain par aucuns
>> >quadrins l'on pourra voir. Ie eusse (voir l'eusse) calculé plus
>> >profondement, & adapté les vns auecques les autres.
>> >
>> >All these things are adapted exactly to the divine characters and the
>> >visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and others in conjunction,
>> >as one could have seen it more amply in some quatrains. I could have
>> >done more and could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
>>
>> He doesn't say "I could have done more and could have joined these
>> quatrains one to the other."
>>
>> He says "I would have calculated more thoroughly and adapted the one
>> to the other."
>
used in a sense of bringing information together, remember the posting I put up
for my dictionary?
on the front of the dictionary it says:
adapted by HG Fowler?
The information was brought together in the dictionary from the other
dictionary.
paraphrasing this:
113.All these things are adapted exactly to the divine characters and the
visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and others in conjunction, as one
could have seen it more amply in some quatrains. I could have done more and
could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
To this:
With more work the quatrains could have been brought together by use of the
planets and constellations so that they might be better understood.
I'm suggesting zodiac constellations because it says "visible stars"
>
>J.
>
>
>> --
>>
>> Peter
matthew winston
Peter Lemesurier
>>> He doesn't say "I could have done more and could have joined these
>>> quatrains one to the other."
>>>
>>> He says "I would have calculated more thoroughly and adapted the one
>>> to the other."
>>
>I have a suggestion on this. I feel that the word adapte(last line above) was
>used in a sense of bringing information together, remember the posting I put up
>for my dictionary?
>
>on the front of the dictionary it says:
>
>adapted by HG Fowler?
>
>The information was brought together in the dictionary from the other
>dictionary.
>
>paraphrasing this:
>113.All these things are adapted exactly to the divine characters and the
>visible stars, i.e. Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and others in conjunction, as one
>could have seen it more amply in some quatrains. I could have done more and
>could have joined these quatrains one to the other.
>
>To this:
>
>With more work the quatrains could have been brought together by use of the
>planets and constellations so that they might be better understood.
>
>I'm suggesting zodiac constellations because it says "visible stars"
Thanks, and I'm sure you're right about this last point.
Nevertheless, the theme of the sentence, plainly announced at the
beginning of it, is the 'adjustment' of 'ces figures' to the 'choses
celestes visibles'. This suggests that when Nostradamus refers later
in the same sentence to 'adjusting the ones to the others', that is
what he is talking about -- even though he has by then forgotten the
gender of the nouns he is referring back to, as he was manifestly
quite prone to do, and so he makes it look (by using the masculine
'uns') as if he is instead referring to the adapting *the 'quadrins'*
to each other.
Thus, the case is by no means clear-cut -- but it would be unwise to
infer (as Jean predictably does) that he is definitely referring to
'adjusting the quatrains one to the other' (to Jean, everything is
definite!), when this doesn't really make a lot of sense in context,
whereas the sense I propose does.
--
Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
conveniently
> forgotten the
> gender of the nouns he is referring back to, as he was manifestly
There is no error like that in the prophetic work.
But go ahead, buy Lemesurier's bullshit.
J.
Jean Guernon
ozzy...@hotmail.com a écrit :
Yes, well, that's the jist of the adaptation of the word "adapt" by
Peter, at least it gets to be rationalized, but I beg to differ. He did
work on figuring the sky for every event, this is clear in the letter.
But in this part he is merely telling the king the quatrains are not
left in their chronological order (IMO). But yours, is a take.
>
> I'm suggesting zodiac constellations because it says "visible stars"
Of course.
J.