Why did Saruman bit fear reribution for his treachery?

56 views
Skip to first unread message

Eruvatar

unread,
Mar 20, 2012, 6:17:59 PM3/20/12
to
As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
consequences of his actions.

Eruvatar middleearthblogspot.blogspot.com

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 20, 2012, 6:30:38 PM3/20/12
to
Julius Caesar and Napoleon were both liberals.

--
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 1:22:45 AM3/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:30:38 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>On 2012-03-20 22:17:59 +0000, Eruvatar said:
>
>> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
>> the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
>> of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
>> wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
>> use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
>> consequences of his actions.
>>
>> Eruvatar middleearthblogspot.blogspot.com
>
>Julius Caesar and Napoleon were both liberals.

Now that's a fine non-sequitur.

And it's probably not even true (how many elections did they hold?)


--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/LITMAIN.HTM
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Message has been deleted

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 12:01:29 PM3/21/12
to
On 2012-03-21 05:22:45 +0000, Steve Hayes said:

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:30:38 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-20 22:17:59 +0000, Eruvatar said:
>>
>>> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
>>> the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
>>> of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
>>> wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
>>> use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
>>> consequences of his actions.
>>>
>>> Eruvatar middleearthblogspot.blogspot.com
>>
>> Julius Caesar and Napoleon were both liberals.
>
> Now that's a fine non-sequitur.

No it isn't; it is, unfortunately, an exact answer to the question asked.

> And it's probably not even true (how many elections did they hold?)

No it isn't; it is, unfortunately, an exact answer to the question asked.

SCIARRONE: Eccellenza! quali nuove!...

SCARPIA: [sorpreso] Che vuol dir quell'aria afflitta?

SCIARRONE: Un messaggio di sconfitta...

SCARPIA: Che sconfitta? Come? Dove?

SCIARRONE: A Marengo...

SCARPIA: (impazientito, gridando) Tartaruga!

SCIARRONE: Bonaparte è vincitor!

SCARPIA: Melas...

SCIARRONE: No! Melas è in fuga!...

[Cavaradossi, che con ansia crescente ha udito le parole di Sciarrone,
trova nel proprio entusiasmo la forza di alzarsi minaccioso in faccia a
Scarpia]

CAVARADOSSI: Vittoria! Vittoria!
L'alba vindice appar
che fa gli empi tremar!
Libertà sorge, crollan tirannidi!
Del sofferto martir
me vedrai qui gioir...
il tuo cor trema, o Scarpia, carnefice!
-- "Tosca"

(If your Italian isn't up to it, Google Translate's rendition isn't too bad.)

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 12:51:10 PM3/21/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:22:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:30:38 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2012-03-20 22:17:59 +0000, Eruvatar said:
>>
>>> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
>>> the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
>>> of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
>>> wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
>>> use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
>>> consequences of his actions.
>>>
>>> Eruvatar middleearthblogspot.blogspot.com
>>
>>Julius Caesar and Napoleon were both liberals.
>
>Now that's a fine non-sequitur.

Well, of course it is.

A proper response would be: because he was corrupted by the desire for
power. In which case, Julius Caesar and Napoleon would be passable
analogies.

>And it's probably not even true (how many elections did they hold?)

As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
"liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
Well, those who could afford it, anyway.

And Napoleon was certainly a "liberal" in the same sense, that is, was
a free man.

Saruman, on the other hand, was a Maia, not a Man, and so /cannot/
have been "liberal" in the same sense as Julius Caesar and Napoleon,
as that sense only applies to Men.

Note that the opposite of this meaning of "liberal" is "slave". Not
"conservative" (or even "nutter"), "slave". How words change over
time!

It's a good thing John W Kennedy responded to you; otherwise his
response above would qualify him as a troll (but only in this one
instance), since he is far too intelligent not to know what "liberal"
meant in the past.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

derek

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 2:50:10 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 1:51 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:22:45 +0200, Steve Hayes

> As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
> "liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
> Well, those who could afford it, anyway.

And later, "liberal" came to be used in politics for monetary policy,
with the same sense of "free". Now we call people with a liberal
monetary policy, "conservatives". Go figure.

Hallaril

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 4:48:16 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 6:51 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
wrote:
snip
>
> A proper response would be: because he was corrupted by the desire for
> power. In which case, Julius Caesar and Napoleon would be passable
> analogies.
snip

Liberal means so many things in different places that it's too
confusing a term for me.
Caesar was one of the populares and thus his political base were the
non aristocratic free people of Rome.
To large extent the poor but also the well off people who weren't part
of the established aristocracy.
He used tribunes of the plebs repeatedly and was often at odds with
the senatorial elite.
The optimates clung to conservative values and people like Caesar were
in direct opposition with them.
If people want to call that liberalism, they can go right ahead IMO.
Ofc he was from an old patrician family and I really doubt political
ideals played much part in his actions or alliance with the populares.
Mostly it was probably necessity and his blood relationship to
Marius.
His becoming a dictator for life and his adopted son a de facto king
was not in any way conservative politics or at odds with what he
represented earlier.
One man rule in Rome was proggressive/liberal/whatever as opposed to
conservative because it was a change from the status quo. It
definitely wasn't what conservative politics.
He was a populist leader and when he died he was still a hugely
popular populist leader. He was killed by the established aristocracy
who wanted to return the old ways and the pre-eminence of the senate.

What this has to do with Saruman, I don't understand.
Why should he be afraid of the Valar. Valar had done nothing in middle-
earth for two ages and it was pretty apparent that they weren't going
to change their arch-conservative policy.
Secondly he like Gandalf were not purely Maiar anymore. They had been
clad in flesh for centuries and that had changed them. To my
understanding they had developed human weaknesses.
I'm not a believer but Jesus is an analogy of a sorts although he is a
god in human flesh and not an angel. He could also feel fear and lust
when he lived here for those 30 years and the Istari were around for
2000 years.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 5:15:43 PM3/21/12
to
None of which has anything to do with the two facts, that Caesar was
the de-facto leader of the Populares, and that Napoleon was recognized
throughout Europe (except the UK) as the savior of the Revolution and
the great liberator -- and is remembered as such to this day.

Lancelot moved to descend; the king's friend kneeled,
the king's organic motion, the king's mind's blood,
the lion in the blood roaring through the mouth of creation
as the lions roar that stand in the Byzantine glory.
Guinevere's chalice flew red on an argent field.

So, in Lancelot's hand, she came through the glow,
into the king's mind, who stood to look on his city;
the king made for the kingdom, or the kingdom made for the king?
Thwart drove his current against the current of Merlin:
in beleaguered Sophia they sang of the dolorous blow.
-- Charles Williams, "The Crowning of Arthur"

Like Williams' Arthur, like Caesar, like Napoleon, (and, needless to
say, like Melkor) Saruman chooses to decide to make the war about
himself.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 6:52:23 PM3/21/12
to
On 2012-03-21 20:48:16 +0000, Hallaril said:

> On Mar 21, 6:51 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> snip
>>
>> A proper response would be: because he was corrupted by the desire for
>> power. In which case, Julius Caesar and Napoleon would be passable
>> analogies.
> snip
>
> Liberal means so many things in different places that it's too
> confusing a term for me.

I quite agree, in fact, but people keep using it. And they keep using
"conservative" as its opposite, which it is, of course, not.

> Caesar was one of the populares and thus his political base were the
> non aristocratic free people of Rome.
> To large extent the poor but also the well off people who weren't part
> of the established aristocracy.
> He used tribunes of the plebs repeatedly and was often at odds with
> the senatorial elite.
> The optimates clung to conservative values and people like Caesar were
> in direct opposition with them.
> If people want to call that liberalism, they can go right ahead IMO.
> Ofc he was from an old patrician family and I really doubt political
> ideals played much part in his actions or alliance with the populares.
> Mostly it was probably necessity and his blood relationship to
> Marius.
> His becoming a dictator for life and his adopted son a de facto king
> was not in any way conservative politics or at odds with what he
> represented earlier.
> One man rule in Rome was proggressive/liberal/whatever as opposed to
> conservative because it was a change from the status quo. It
> definitely wasn't what conservative politics.
> He was a populist leader and when he died he was still a hugely
> popular populist leader. He was killed by the established aristocracy
> who wanted to return the old ways and the pre-eminence of the senate.
>
> What this has to do with Saruman, I don't understand.

Explained elsewhere.

> Why should he be afraid of the Valar. Valar had done nothing in middle-
> earth for two ages and it was pretty apparent that they weren't going
> to change their arch-conservative policy.
> Secondly he like Gandalf were not purely Maiar anymore. They had been
> clad in flesh for centuries and that had changed them. To my
> understanding they had developed human weaknesses.
> I'm not a believer but Jesus is an analogy of a sorts although he is a
> god in human flesh and not an angel. He could also feel fear and lust
> when he lived here for those 30 years and the Istari were around for
> 2000 years.


Bill O'Meally

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 7:53:19 PM3/21/12
to
On 2012-03-20 17:17:59 -0500, Eruvatar said:

> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
> the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
> of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
> wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
> use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
> consequences of his actions.
>

Sauron was a Maia. The Balrogs were Maiar. Possibly some early Orcs
were Maiar. Morgoth was a *Vala*. If any of *them* had fears of
consequences of their actions, it was overridden by whatever motivated
them to do evil.
--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

derek

unread,
Mar 21, 2012, 10:05:24 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 6:15 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-03-21 18:50:10 +0000, derek said:
>
> > On Mar 21, 1:51 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:22:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
>
> >> As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
> >> "liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
> >> Well, those who could afford it, anyway.
>
> > And later, "liberal" came to be used in politics for monetary policy,
> > with the same sense of "free".  Now we call people with a liberal
> > monetary policy, "conservatives".  Go figure.
>
> None of which has anything to do with the two facts, that Caesar was
> the de-facto leader of the Populares, and that Napoleon was recognized
> throughout Europe (except the UK) as the savior of the Revolution and
> the great liberator -- and is remembered as such to this day.

Try telling that to the Russians. In any case, it all has as much to
do with the original question as your non sequitur.
>
> Like Williams' Arthur, like Caesar, like Napoleon, (and, needless to
> say, like Melkor) Saruman chooses to decide to make the war about
> himself.

Well, that's fine, but Saruman doesn't manage to be a "liberal" by any
definition I've ever heard, so your original comment is still not
relevant.

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 8:38:33 AM3/22/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:22:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:30:38 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2012-03-20 22:17:59 +0000, Eruvatar said:
>>>
>>>> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
>>>> the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
>>>> of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
>>>> wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
>>>> use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
>>>> consequences of his actions.
>>>>
>>>> Eruvatar middleearthblogspot.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>Julius Caesar and Napoleon were both liberals.
>>
>>Now that's a fine non-sequitur.
>
>Well, of course it is.
>
>A proper response would be: because he was corrupted by the desire for
>power. In which case, Julius Caesar and Napoleon would be passable
>analogies.
>
>>And it's probably not even true (how many elections did they hold?)
>
>As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
>"liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
>Well, those who could afford it, anyway.

Liberal doesn't mean a free man, and I doubt that there were any liberals
around in Julius Caesar's time anyway. There were a few in Napoleon's time,
but he certainly wasn't one of them.

Yes, a "liberal education" was indeed thought to be the kind of education
suitable for a free man -- sons of gentlemen, anyway. I went to a school that
had a bronze plaque announcing that its aim was to give "a liberal education
with a Christian teaching", and that meant that it didn't plan to teach stuff
that were considered unsuitable for gentlemen -- vocational subjects like
carpentry, metal working and the like. Yobbos, plebs and peasants went to
technical schools for that sort of stuff.

The only liberals around Saruman, however, were Merry and Pippin, who
subversively provoked a liberal revolt.

The were the ones who came closest to the sentiments of the liberal historian
Lord Acton, whose maxim "...power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely" describes the corruption of Saruman, even if it doesn't
fully explain it.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 10:23:51 AM3/22/12
to
Hopeless.

Michael Graf

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 11:55:18 AM3/22/12
to
Hello!

Am 21.03.2012 11:42, schrieb Raven:
> "Eruvatar" <Eruv...@Arda.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:4f69021f$0$2076$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com...

>> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of Eru and
>> the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his base treachery
>> of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron. I can understand him
>> wanting to keep Sauron from getting back the ring of power but not to
>> use it to replace him. Just seems that he would have been afraid of the
>> consequences of his actions.

> Most likely because he knew that the Valar had given up meddling
> directly in the affairs of Middle-earth. His own order, Heren Istarion,
> were the Valar's last ditch effort against Sauron, and he must have
> known that. Just as Sauron believed, as directly stated by Tolkien,
> that Eru and the Valar had quite given up Middle-earth

Mmmh, could you cite a source? I can remember the Valar giving up
guardianship over Arda (not only ME, downfall of Numenor), and indeed I
always had the feeling that Men had been the unloved "foster-children"
of the Lords of the West. But Eru/Illuvatar? He brought Gandalf back to
live to fulfill his quest (in a way, at least) and extended his "magical
power", and so directly interfered in favour of Sauron's opponents. I
somehow thought that Men turned more directly to Illuvatar than to his
"stewards", the Valar. He definitely had been utterly angry about what
the Numenorians did in their last days, but also Men didn't have that
easy start in existence in comparison to the Elves.

> and that he could
> therefore do what he liked with it, so presumably Saruman believed that
> the Powers of the West and Ilúvatar wouldn't meddle anymore. Loser.

ACK, concerning the Valar. Not so sure about Illuvatar.

Michael

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 1:27:08 PM3/22/12
to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:38:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0700, Paul S. Person
><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

<snippo>

>>As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
>>"liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
>>Well, those who could afford it, anyway.
>
>Liberal doesn't mean a free man, and I doubt that there were any liberals
>around in Julius Caesar's time anyway. There were a few in Napoleon's time,
>but he certainly wasn't one of them.

In Julius Caesar's day, that is exactly what it meant: /liberalis/
meant "free".

That's why the same root shows up in "liberty". In this meaning, only
liberals have liberty; slaves do not.

In the sense you are using, of course, you are correct: neither Caesar
nor Napoleon was "liberal" in that sense. And I doubt that Saruman was
very "liberal" with his Orcs and Men, in any sense.

The film /Amadeus/ illustrates another usage: the Emperor prefaces his
insistance on /Figaro/ being prohibited by stating "I am a liberal
man". And, in the sense of having recieved a liberal education, he
certainly was.

Today, of course, calling someone "liberal" simply means "I don't like
that person". It has no real meaning. Ironically, "conservative" now
works the same way. You might think that these terms have meaning from
the passion with which they are spoken but, in fact, that shows that
they are now entirely emotional and have no content. Contrast this
with "nutter", which still has some meaning, whether applied to a
"liberal" or to a "conservative".

>Yes, a "liberal education" was indeed thought to be the kind of education
>suitable for a free man -- sons of gentlemen, anyway. I went to a school that
>had a bronze plaque announcing that its aim was to give "a liberal education
>with a Christian teaching", and that meant that it didn't plan to teach stuff
>that were considered unsuitable for gentlemen -- vocational subjects like
>carpentry, metal working and the like. Yobbos, plebs and peasants went to
>technical schools for that sort of stuff.

This is a correct depiction of what "liberal education" came to mean
over time. And rightly so: what was a practical education for men who
were expected to be leaders in their society was not the education
appropriate to men who were expected to be bakers or any of a thousand
other trades and, over time, the trivium and quadrivium not only came
to be of of no practical use, the type of education based on them,
while still retaining the historical tag "liberal", was proudly
acknowledged to be of no practical use; indeed, as you note, education
with a practical use was downgraded and disparaged.

By the 1960's in America, of course, it meant "you take the courses we
tell you to and as many of them as we tell you each term and you pass
them all or you get drafted".

But only for the males. But then, being dedicated to traditional
family values, only males, and only some of them, and only after they
came of age, could be "liberal" (that is, "free") in the society of
Julius Caesar's day. Everyone else was property of one sort or
another.

Julian Bradfield

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 2:38:32 PM3/22/12
to
On 2012-03-22, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> Today, of course, calling someone "liberal" simply means "I don't like
> that person".

This is a feature of the U.S.A., not of English in general, and
certainly not of the country in whose language the Lord of the Rings
is written.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 4:45:33 PM3/22/12
to
On 2012-03-22 18:38:32 +0000, Julian Bradfield said:

> On 2012-03-22, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Today, of course, calling someone "liberal" simply means "I don't like
>> that person".
>
> This is a feature of the U.S.A.,

Only among the seditious.

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 5:12:47 PM3/22/12
to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:27:08 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:38:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0700, Paul S. Person
>><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
><snippo>
>
>>>As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
>>>"liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
>>>Well, those who could afford it, anyway.
>>
>>Liberal doesn't mean a free man, and I doubt that there were any liberals
>>around in Julius Caesar's time anyway. There were a few in Napoleon's time,
>>but he certainly wasn't one of them.
>
>In Julius Caesar's day, that is exactly what it meant: /liberalis/
>meant "free".
>
>That's why the same root shows up in "liberty". In this meaning, only
>liberals have liberty; slaves do not.

In English, the word "liberal" was an adjective before it was a noun. I don't
have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, but I\m pretty certain that it
would show that. And, as an adjective, its earlier mean would have been
"generous".

And when it came to be used as a noun, it did not mean a free man, but a lover
of freedom, or somene who was in favour of the idea of freedom, or a political
policy that protected freedom.

>In the sense you are using, of course, you are correct: neither Caesar
>nor Napoleon was "liberal" in that sense. And I doubt that Saruman was
>very "liberal" with his Orcs and Men, in any sense.
>
>The film /Amadeus/ illustrates another usage: the Emperor prefaces his
>insistance on /Figaro/ being prohibited by stating "I am a liberal
>man". And, in the sense of having recieved a liberal education, he
>certainly was.
>
>Today, of course, calling someone "liberal" simply means "I don't like
>that person". It has no real meaning.

No it doesn't.

That depends entirely on the political views of the person doing the not
liking. Enemies of freedom, like fascists and communistsm, naturally won't
like liberals. But other liberals might.

But I still fail to see who saying that Napoleon and Julius Caesar were
liberal (which they weren't) explains the behaviour of Saruman.

derek

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 10:22:57 PM3/22/12
to
On Mar 22, 11:23 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Hopeless.

You're right. I'm hopeless. I have no hope that you're ever going to
explain yourself.
Message has been deleted

Steve Morrison

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 2:15:59 AM3/23/12
to
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:01:47 +0100, Raven wrote:

> It is explicitly stated, though I have forgotten where, that Sauron
> genuinely believed that Eru and the Valar had lost interest in
> Middle-earth. He therefore believed that he could do what he liked with
> it to the extent that his power within Middle-earth permitted it,
> forever.

It's from p. 397 of /Morgoth's Ring/, in Part V, "Myths Transformed",
section VII(i), "Notes on motives in the Silmarillion":

[...]Sauron could not, of course, be a 'sincere' atheist. Though
one of the minor spirits created before the world, he knew Eru,
according to his measure. He probably deluded himself with the
notion that the Valar (including Melkor) having failed, Eru had
simply abandoned Eä, or at any rate Arda, and would not concern
himself with it any more. It would appear that he interpreted the
'change of the world' at the downfall of Númenor, when Aman was
removed from the physical world, in this sense: Valar (and Elves)
were removed from effective control, and Men under God's curse
and wrath. If he thought about the /Istari/, especially Saruman
and Gandalf, he imagined them as emissaries from the Valar,
seeking to establish their lost power again and 'colonize'
Middle-earth, as a mere effort of defeated imperialists (without
knowledge or sanction of Eru).[...]

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 10:31:12 AM3/23/12
to
On 2012-03-23 05:01:47 +0000, Raven said:
> The OP wonders how Saruman could dare his treachery, but the
> question how Sauron dared his is at least equally pertinent. Sauron
> had witnessed the might and majesty of the Valar on two occasions:
> during the war against Utumno and the War of Wrath, and that of
> Ilúvatar once: the Akallabêth.

But Sauron had fallen before any of these events.

It is noteworthy here that Aquinas says (ST I, Q. 64, A. 2) that the
fallen angels, by their very nature, are incapable of repentance.

--
John W Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's
throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of
treason to the United States."
-- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 12:16:11 PM3/23/12
to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:
He can't.

He made a smart-ass political remark which was, actually, quite witty,
and is not willing to admit that that is all it was: a witty non
sequitur with no actual meaning.

There is no explanation. The witty non sequitur is all there is.

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 12:17:46 PM3/23/12
to
I will take your word for it.

We are still two great nations divided by a common language, after
all.

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 1:02:49 PM3/23/12
to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:12:47 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:27:08 -0700, Paul S. Person
><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:38:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0700, Paul S. Person
>>><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>><snippo>
>>
>>>>As for Julius Caesar -- at that time, "liberal" meant "free". A
>>>>"liberal education" was the education given to the sons of free men.
>>>>Well, those who could afford it, anyway.
>>>
>>>Liberal doesn't mean a free man, and I doubt that there were any liberals
>>>around in Julius Caesar's time anyway. There were a few in Napoleon's time,
>>>but he certainly wasn't one of them.
>>
>>In Julius Caesar's day, that is exactly what it meant: /liberalis/
>>meant "free".
>>
>>That's why the same root shows up in "liberty". In this meaning, only
>>liberals have liberty; slaves do not.
>
>In English, the word "liberal" was an adjective before it was a noun. I don't
>have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, but I\m pretty certain that it
>would show that. And, as an adjective, its earlier mean would have been
>"generous".

OK, let's look at some dictionaries:

In Webster's Third International, the third variant of the first
meaning (as an adjective) is

1c of, belonging to, or befitting a free man

(1a was similar but for "liberal arts"; 1b was similar for "a man of
free birth", but was said to be archaic, leaving 1c as the relevant
definition here, IMHO)

The second meaning is "generous".

Indeed, "liberal" is still recognizable as a synonym for "generous",
particularly when applied to money or possessions. But then, "free"
can be used with the same meaning.

>And when it came to be used as a noun, it did not mean a free man, but a lover
>of freedom, or somene who was in favour of the idea of freedom, or a political
>policy that protected freedom.

I do not doubt this; however, did Julius Caesar speak English? No? He
didn't?

Then the original English meaning isn't really relevant here.

Consulting White's (Latin Dictionary) for /liberalis/ gives the
adjective the proper meaning

of, or belonging to, a liber, or free man

which is very interesting, since the _noun_ /liber/ is said to mean
"child".

Intriguingly, the phrase "liberalis causa" is said to mean "a suit
concerning a person's freedom"; the English "liberal cause" is, of
course, completely different.

As an adjective, it can also mean "befitting a freeman" or "generous",
but these are "by metonomy". "Metonomy", it appears, is a figure of
speech using the name of one thing for that of another; the clearest
example in Webster's Third International is "ogling the heavily
mascaraed skirt at the next table", where "skirt" is in italics and to
be understood as a metonomy for "woman".

So, in Latin at least, /liberalis/ suggested "generous" the same way
that "skirt" suggested "woman. I guess; I must admit that both my
interest in and knowledge of figures of speech, as a topic of
knowledge, are extremely limited.

As a noun /liberalis/ means "a person of liberal feelings or
education". This is also "by metonomy".

And I don't recall Napoleon speaking English either; at least, not as
his mother tongue, that is, the language that he thought in. I would
be very surprised to learn that "liberal" could not mean "a man with a
liberal education" in his day, but I suppose anything is possible.

That's the problem with some words: their meanings change so much
across time and language and culture that it is very difficult, and
occasionally impossible, to determine what they mean in any particular
context.

Incidentally, I am toying with the idea that attempting to force the
any English meaning of "liberal" onto the language and culture of
Julius Caesar is a form of imperialism, that is, a form of the belief
that /my/ culture is superior to all others and must therefore be
adopted by everyone else (well, at least those who can't fight back).

>>In the sense you are using, of course, you are correct: neither Caesar
>>nor Napoleon was "liberal" in that sense. And I doubt that Saruman was
>>very "liberal" with his Orcs and Men, in any sense.
>>
>>The film /Amadeus/ illustrates another usage: the Emperor prefaces his
>>insistance on /Figaro/ being prohibited by stating "I am a liberal
>>man". And, in the sense of having recieved a liberal education, he
>>certainly was.
>>
>>Today, of course, calling someone "liberal" simply means "I don't like
>>that person". It has no real meaning.
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>That depends entirely on the political views of the person doing the not
>liking. Enemies of freedom, like fascists and communistsm, naturally won't
>like liberals. But other liberals might.

And how often does a self-identified "liberal" call someone else a
"liberal"? Compared to how often a self-identified "liberal" calls
someone else a "conservative"?

That said, yes, some people who think of themselves as "liberal" (or
"conservative") may occasionally use the term about people they like.
But that is not the primary use seen in public discourse, particularly
political discourse in the USA. It appears that I was imprecise.

>But I still fail to see who saying that Napoleon and Julius Caesar were
>liberal (which they weren't) explains the behaviour of Saruman.

They /were/ liberal in the way the terms were used classically. Well,
Julius Caesar certainly was.

And of course it doesn't explain the behavious or Saruman. Saruman,
being a Maia, cannot, even hobbled, be a "liberal" or anything else in
any sense that pertains to Men and, since a "liberal" is short for a
"liberal man", the term definitely pertains to Men and not Maiar..

But then the statement you are referring to may not have been intended
to explain anything. As best I can make out, it was intended to be a
witty, but meaningless, political comment. And that it certainly was,
at least IMHO.

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 1:06:09 PM3/23/12
to
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:31:12 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2012-03-23 05:01:47 +0000, Raven said:
>> The OP wonders how Saruman could dare his treachery, but the
>> question how Sauron dared his is at least equally pertinent. Sauron
>> had witnessed the might and majesty of the Valar on two occasions:
>> during the war against Utumno and the War of Wrath, and that of
>> Ilúvatar once: the Akallabêth.
>
>But Sauron had fallen before any of these events.
>
>It is noteworthy here that Aquinas says (ST I, Q. 64, A. 2) that the
>fallen angels, by their very nature, are incapable of repentance.

IIRC (and I must say that my memory of Aquinas is getting /very/
rusty) he also states that they fell the moment they were created.
That is, that there was never a time they were not fallen (by their
own choice, of course).

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 4:32:09 PM3/23/12
to
In message <news:jkfi16$jog$1...@dont-email.me>
Michael Graf <deg...@freenet.de> spoke these staves:
>
> Am 21.03.2012 11:42, schrieb Raven:
>>
>> "Eruvatar" <Eruv...@Arda.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:4f69021f$0$2076$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>
>>> As Saruman was of the Maia and had obviously seen the power of
>>> Eru and the Valar, why did he not fear their reactions to his
>>> base treachery of his mission to aid others to resist Sauron.

That would require that he did see his own actions as a 'base
treachery' against the mission he was given, and I am not entirely
convinced that he saw it that way. In many ways I think Saruman fell
into the same trap as did Sauron -- starting out wanting /good/ to
happen to Middle-earth, they became fixed on their own personal
interpretation of 'good', and wanted to implement that particular
vision of 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'
regardless of whether others would disagree. In that desire lies the
seeds for their lust for domination (forcing their vision upon all
others) and the power to force through their vision. Saruman would
have argued that he had, as the only one, actually stayed true to the
mission, and was working to ensure universal peace and prosperity in
Middle-earth (and who gives a bother about freedom, anyway?)

>>> I can understand him wanting to keep Sauron from getting back
>>> the ring of power but not to use it to replace him. Just seems
>>> that he would have been afraid of the consequences of his
>>> actions.
>>
>> Most likely because he knew that the Valar had given up meddling
>> directly in the affairs of Middle-earth. His own order, Heren
>> Istarion, were the Valar's last ditch effort against Sauron, and
>> he must have known that. Just as Sauron believed, as directly
>> stated by Tolkien, that Eru and the Valar had quite given up
>> Middle-earth

Yes, this is the other aspect of it. Saruman would, better than any
other, have known that he was 'on his own' and thus left to his own
devices in Middle-earth. Yes, the Wizards were directed not to
dominate the inhabitants of Middle-earth in any way (fear, awe,
worship or whatever), but the Valar weren't there, were they? The
Valar just didn't know the situation in Middle-earth, did they? And
they had no intention of interfering ever again, anyway, had they?
And surely they'd understand that Saruman had no other options, if
only they could see what the situation in Middle-earth was /really/
like, wouldn't they?

> Mmmh, could you cite a source? I can remember the Valar giving up
> guardianship over Arda (not only ME, downfall of Numenor),

In actual fact, that was a very temporary thing, and only lasted
while Eru punished the Númenóreans. The Valar had, however, become
very careful about interfering in Middle-earth (after failing
miserably a couple of times) and in particular with the Eruhíni. The
Wizards were their only strategy in the Third Age, and it is likely
that Saruman had been told that there would be no help (or, as he
might later have viewed it, 'interference') from Valinor under any
circumstances.

Theres is a text in 'Myths Transformed' (part 5 of /Morgoth's Ring/ -
/HoMe 10/) that contains several passages that pertain to this
discussion, Text VII 'Notes on motives in The Silmarillion' (where
many of the motives discussed are actually referring to /The Lord of
the Rings/ since the Istari do not exist as such in the formal
/Quenta Silmarillion/).

In section (i)
it had been [Sauron's] virtue (and therefore also the cause
of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and
co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful
friction.(It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to
effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first
attracted Sauron to him.) Sauron had, in fact, been very
like Saruman, and so still understood him quickly and could
guess what he would be likely to think and do, even without
the aid of /palantiri/ or of spies
[...]
But like all minds of this cast, Sauron's love (originally)
or (later) mere understanding of other individual
intelligences was correspondingly weaker; and though the
only real good in, or rational motive for, all this
ordering and planning and organization was the good of all
inhabitants of Arda (even admitting Sauron's right to be
their supreme lord), his 'plans', the idea coming from his
own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and
an end, the End, in itself. [*]
[...]
Sauron could not, of course, be a 'sincere' atheist. Though
one of the minor spirits created before the world, he knew
Eru, according to his measure. He probably deluded himself
with the notion that the Valar (including Melkor) having
failed, Eru had simply abandoned Eä, or at any rate Arda,
and would not concern himself with it any more. It would
appear that he interpreted the 'change of the world' at the
Downfall of Númenor, when Aman was removed from the
physical world, in this sense: Valar (and Elves) were
removed from effective control, and Men under God's curse
and wrath.
[...]
[Sauron's] cynicism, which (sincerely) regarded the motives
of Manwë as precisely the same as his own, seemed fully
justified in Saruman. Gandalf he did not understand. But
certainly he had already become evil, and therefore stupid,
enough to imagine that his different behaviour was due
simply to weaker intelligence and lack of firm masterful
purpose.

[*] [Footnote to the text] But his capability of corrupting
other minds, and even engaging their service, was a residue
from the fact that his original desire for 'order' had
really envisaged the good estate specially physical well-
being) of his 'subjects'

and in section (iii):
The Valar 'fade' and become more impotent, precisely in
proportion as the shape and constitution of things becomes
more defined and settled. The longer the Past, the more
nearly defined the Future, and the less room for important
change (untrammelled action, on a physical plane, that is
not destructive in purpose). The Past, once 'achieved', has
become part of the 'Music in being'. Only Eru may or can
alter the 'Music'. The last major effort, of this demiurgic
kind, made by the Valar was the lifting up of the range of
the Pelori to a great height. It is possible to view this
as, if not an actually bad action, at least as a mistaken
one. Ulmo disapproved of it.

Christopher Tolkien judges all the texts of this section to belong to
the years about 1960 when Tolkien was attempting to create a
consistent Silmarillion after the publication of /The Lord of the
Rings/ -- that of course means that it is written perhaps twenty
years after the first parts of /The Lord of the Rings/ and some of it
may be post-rationalisations -- attempts to answer some of the
questions that are not answered in /LotR/ simply because no answers
had existed a mere half decade earlier when /LotR/ was published.
This of course needs to be taken into account -- when I answer I base
it on what Tolkien said years later, and he may have thought
something completely different (or, IMO more likely, not have
considered these questions) when he wrote and edited /LotR/.

> and indeed I always had the feeling that Men had been the unloved
> "foster-children" of the Lords of the West.

That's a bit harsh, I think :)

There are, I think, at least two things going on. First of all, the
Valar definitely suffered from having burned their fingers on the
interfering with the Elves -- not just once bitten, but several times
bitten and now seriously shy. At the same time there is the very
real issue of the Valar's power fading as described in the quotation
above.

> But Eru/Illuvatar? He brought Gandalf back to live to fulfill his
> quest (in a way, at least) and extended his "magical power", and
> so directly interfered in favour of Sauron's opponents.

That, however was the first real sign in more than three thousand
years (or, perhaps more correctly, the first thing that could be
explained in no other way), and at that point it was not only too
late for Saruman and Sauron to turn around, but they probably didn't
know hoots about it anyway. I very much doubt that Saruman had any
idea that anything special had happened to Gandalf until he was
called back and his staff broken after the destruction of Isengard.

> I somehow thought that Men turned more directly to Illuvatar than
> to his "stewards", the Valar.

You may be thinking of Númenórean traditions at the Meneltarma (not
sure if 'worship' would be a correct description, but the place was
hallowed to Ilúvatar and they did have some kind of ceremony of
thanksgiving there.

[...]

>> and that he could therefore do what he liked with it, so
>> presumably Saruman believed that the Powers of the West and
>> Ilúvatar wouldn't meddle anymore. Loser.

Considering your points above (the stated similarities between
Saruman and Sauron as well as Tolkien's explicit descriptions of
Sauron's beliefs), I think it is very likely that Saruman came to the
same conclusions despite having more recent (albeit only by a
thousand years or so) information.

--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left
the path of wisdom.
- Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 7:26:20 PM3/23/12
to
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:49 -0700, Paul S. Person
Yes, in that sense it is an adjective meaning "of, or belonging to" a free
man. It does *not* mean "a free man".

On the other hand, "libertine", which now means a morally dissolute person,
used to mean "a free man".

As a noun, "liberal" means a person who has liberal views or opinions
(Collins).

As an adjective, Collins has:

1. relating to or having social or political views that favour progress and
reform;

2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom;

3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour;

4. tolerant of other people;

5. abundant, lavish "a liberal helping of cream";

6. not strict, free "a liberal translation";

7. of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural
interests and intellectual ability.

>>And when it came to be used as a noun, it did not mean a free man, but a lover
>>of freedom, or somene who was in favour of the idea of freedom, or a political
>>policy that protected freedom.
>
>I do not doubt this; however, did Julius Caesar speak English? No? He
>didn't?

>Then the original English meaning isn't really relevant here.

I can't find "liberal" in my Latin dictionary. Caesar may have been "liber", a
free man, but he was not "liberalis" in the political sense of favouring
individual freedom, nor, to my knowledge, was Napoleon.

And, in the matter of Saruman, the outstanding liberals there were Merry and
Pippin, who not merely held liberal views, but acted on them, and so became
liberators as well as liberals. And that was something they repeated in the
scouring of the Shire.

>Consulting White's (Latin Dictionary) for /liberalis/ gives the
>adjective the proper meaning
>
>of, or belonging to, a liber, or free man

Quite, a free man is "liber", not "a liberal".

Even slaves can be liberals if they think freedom is a good idea.

>which is very interesting, since the _noun_ /liber/ is said to mean
>"child".
>
>Intriguingly, the phrase "liberalis causa" is said to mean "a suit
>concerning a person's freedom"; the English "liberal cause" is, of
>course, completely different.

It is?

>As a noun /liberalis/ means "a person of liberal feelings or
>education". This is also "by metonomy".
>
>And I don't recall Napoleon speaking English either; at least, not as
>his mother tongue, that is, the language that he thought in. I would
>be very surprised to learn that "liberal" could not mean "a man with a
>liberal education" in his day, but I suppose anything is possible.

I doubt that it ever meant that.

>That's the problem with some words: their meanings change so much
>across time and language and culture that it is very difficult, and
>occasionally impossible, to determine what they mean in any particular
>context.
>
>Incidentally, I am toying with the idea that attempting to force the
>any English meaning of "liberal" onto the language and culture of
>Julius Caesar is a form of imperialism, that is, a form of the belief
>that /my/ culture is superior to all others and must therefore be
>adopted by everyone else (well, at least those who can't fight back).

Julius Caesar was more likely to have been an imperialist than a liberal,
since he became an imperator, though whether that was by accident or design
might be a moot point.

>>>Today, of course, calling someone "liberal" simply means "I don't like
>>>that person". It has no real meaning.
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>>
>>That depends entirely on the political views of the person doing the not
>>liking. Enemies of freedom, like fascists and communistsm, naturally won't
>>like liberals. But other liberals might.
>
>And how often does a self-identified "liberal" call someone else a
>"liberal"? Compared to how often a self-identified "liberal" calls
>someone else a "conservative"?

As a self-identified liberal, I often call other liberals liberal, as I do
here, for example:

http://khanya.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/biography-of-peter-brown-south-african-liberal-leader/

>That said, yes, some people who think of themselves as "liberal" (or
>"conservative") may occasionally use the term about people they like.
>But that is not the primary use seen in public discourse, particularly
>political discourse in the USA. It appears that I was imprecise.

In the political sense, the opposite of "liberal" is not "conservative" but
"authoritarian" (which I think Julius Caesar may have been, and Napoleon
certainly was).

A "conservative" is someone who wants to maintain the status quo, whatever
that may be. In a liberal society (which Saruman's was not) a liberal could
well be conservative. An an authoritarian society (which Saruman's was)
liberals like Merry and Pippin would be revolutionary.

>>But I still fail to see who saying that Napoleon and Julius Caesar were
>>liberal (which they weren't) explains the behaviour of Saruman.
>
>They /were/ liberal in the way the terms were used classically. Well,
>Julius Caesar certainly was.

In what way?

It's a while since I read any Roman history history of the period, but I don't
recall recall his views or policies being particularly liberal. Imperialist,
yes, since his memoirs of his military career go into considerable detail
about how he brought various independent Gallic political formations under
Roman rule and kept them there. But I don't recall him giving them votes in
the Roman senatorial elections or anything like that.

>And of course it doesn't explain the behavious or Saruman. Saruman,
>being a Maia, cannot, even hobbled, be a "liberal" or anything else in
>any sense that pertains to Men and, since a "liberal" is short for a
>"liberal man", the term definitely pertains to Men and not Maiar..

Oh, I dunno about that. Gandalf was a Maia too, and he was liberal enough to
want to liberate people from Sauron's oppression. And though he didn't play a
very active role in the liberation of those oppressed by Saruman, he certainly
encouraged Merry and Pippin to do so, and they weren't men either, they were
hobbits.

>But then the statement you are referring to may not have been intended
>to explain anything. As best I can make out, it was intended to be a
>witty, but meaningless, political comment. And that it certainly was,
>at least IMHO.

I thought it was neither witty nor true. It was just a rather puzzling non
sequitur, which John W. Kennedy hasn't seen fit to explain. I usually find his
comments on Tolkien's work perceptive and accurate, which makes that one even
more puzzling.

Rast

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 9:16:53 PM3/23/12
to
John W Kennedy wrote...
> On 2012-03-23 05:01:47 +0000, Raven said:
> > The OP wonders how Saruman could dare his treachery, but the
> > question how Sauron dared his is at least equally pertinent. Sauron
> > had witnessed the might and majesty of the Valar on two occasions:
> > during the war against Utumno and the War of Wrath, and that of
> > Ilúvatar once: the Akallabêth.
>
> But Sauron had fallen before any of these events.
>
> It is noteworthy here that Aquinas says (ST I, Q. 64, A. 2) that the
> fallen angels, by their very nature, are incapable of repentance.

The Silmarillion implies that Sauron, at least, was not yet completely
fallen:

When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his
fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë the herald of Manwë, and
abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first
falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear,
being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords
of the West. But it was not within the power of Eönwë to pardon those
of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there
receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was
unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a
sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith;
for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eönwë
departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil,
for the bonds that Morgoth bad laid upon him were very strong.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 10:47:49 PM3/23/12
to
"...out of fear...unwilling to return in humiliation...his power had
been great...he hid himself...." Not exactly a perfect act of
contrition. Not exactly an act of contrition at all.

--
John W Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"

Steve Morrison

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 12:08:04 AM3/24/12
to
Well, then, try this passage from Letter #153:

Sauron was of course not 'evil' in origin. He was a 'spirit'
corrupted by the Prime Dark Lord (the Prime sub-creative
Rebel) Morgoth. He was given an opportunity of repentance,
when Morgoth was overcome, but could not face the humiliation
of recantation, and suing for pardon; and so his temporary
turn to good and 'benevolence' ended in a greater relapse,
until he became the main representative of Evil of later ages.
But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful
to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape --
and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who
want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization'
are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert
their will eat them up.

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 1:23:34 PM3/24/12
to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:26:20 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:49 -0700, Paul S. Person
><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

<snippo>

>>I do not doubt this; however, did Julius Caesar speak English? No? He
>>didn't?
>
>>Then the original English meaning isn't really relevant here.
>
>I can't find "liberal" in my Latin dictionary. Caesar may have been "liber", a
>free man, but he was not "liberalis" in the political sense of favouring
>individual freedom, nor, to my knowledge, was Napoleon.

Thanks for confirming my point: Julius Caesar was /not/ "a liberal" in
the modern sense. He /was/ "a liberal" in the sense the term had in
his own culture.

>And, in the matter of Saruman, the outstanding liberals there were Merry and
>Pippin, who not merely held liberal views, but acted on them, and so became
>liberators as well as liberals. And that was something they repeated in the
>scouring of the Shire.

I'm afraid you are confused. Merry and Pippin were firmly embedded in
the power structure, eventually inheriting two of the top positions in
the Shire. They were, in modern non-pejoritive parlance, conservatives
trying to restore the traditional values of the Shire.

>>Consulting White's (Latin Dictionary) for /liberalis/ gives the
>>adjective the proper meaning
>>
>>of, or belonging to, a liber, or free man
>
>Quite, a free man is "liber", not "a liberal".
>
>Even slaves can be liberals if they think freedom is a good idea.

Not in Rome. The concept you are trying to impose did not exist and so
cannot be applied to anyone.

And, anyway, a slave who wishes to be free is not a "liberal" in any
sense of the word; a man who opposes slavery as an institution would
be a "liberal" in some (historical) cultures, but not in Rome because
such persons did not exist.

Keep in mind that, to a great extent, slavery was an alternative to
death for conquered enemies.

>>which is very interesting, since the _noun_ /liber/ is said to mean
>>"child".

What, no response here? Doesn't it seem strange that the dictionary
should define /liber/, used as a noun, as "child" rather than "free
man"?

>>Intriguingly, the phrase "liberalis causa" is said to mean "a suit
>>concerning a person's freedom"; the English "liberal cause" is, of
>>course, completely different.
>
>It is?

Yes, it is.

How many lawsuits concerning a person's freedom have you seen lately?

How many liberal causes exist?

>>As a noun /liberalis/ means "a person of liberal feelings or
>>education". This is also "by metonomy".
>>
>>And I don't recall Napoleon speaking English either; at least, not as
>>his mother tongue, that is, the language that he thought in. I would
>>be very surprised to learn that "liberal" could not mean "a man with a
>>liberal education" in his day, but I suppose anything is possible.
>
>I doubt that it ever meant that.

So, you don't believe White's was correct when it reported exactly
that meaning? It certainly meant that in Julius Caesar's day. I
suspect it still meant that (or could mean that, among other meanings)
in Napoleon's day. It may even mean that, in some contexts, today, for
all I know.

>>That's the problem with some words: their meanings change so much
>>across time and language and culture that it is very difficult, and
>>occasionally impossible, to determine what they mean in any particular
>>context.
>>
>>Incidentally, I am toying with the idea that attempting to force the
>>any English meaning of "liberal" onto the language and culture of
>>Julius Caesar is a form of imperialism, that is, a form of the belief
>>that /my/ culture is superior to all others and must therefore be
>>adopted by everyone else (well, at least those who can't fight back).
>
>Julius Caesar was more likely to have been an imperialist than a liberal,
>since he became an imperator, though whether that was by accident or design
>might be a moot point.

Julius Caesar was a "liberal" in the sense that that word was defined
in his culture. To impose a definition from any other culture, I am
coming to believe, is a form of imperialism.

As it happens, I am currently reading /Christianity and Classical
Culture/ which, sadly, informs me that my preparation in classical
studies was woefully inadequate. The Romans distinguished their
culture from that of Greece but did not seek to impose their culture
on the Hellenized East; indeed, the Roman culture changed over time as
the Hellenized East infiltrated it. Christianity, of course, was one
of those infiltrations; but so was the habit of treating the Imperator
or Caesar as a god-on-earth.

<snippo>

>>And how often does a self-identified "liberal" call someone else a
>>"liberal"? Compared to how often a self-identified "liberal" calls
>>someone else a "conservative"?
>
>As a self-identified liberal, I often call other liberals liberal, as I do
>here, for example:
>
>http://khanya.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/biography-of-peter-brown-south-african-liberal-leader/
>
>>That said, yes, some people who think of themselves as "liberal" (or
>>"conservative") may occasionally use the term about people they like.
>>But that is not the primary use seen in public discourse, particularly
>>political discourse in the USA. It appears that I was imprecise.
>
>In the political sense, the opposite of "liberal" is not "conservative" but
>"authoritarian" (which I think Julius Caesar may have been, and Napoleon
>certainly was).
>
>A "conservative" is someone who wants to maintain the status quo, whatever
>that may be. In a liberal society (which Saruman's was not) a liberal could
>well be conservative. An an authoritarian society (which Saruman's was)
>liberals like Merry and Pippin would be revolutionary.

Nice attempt to redefine "conservative". Are you sure you are a
"liberal"? The contrast with "authoritarian" suggests rather a
"libertarian" or "anarchist". Note that this applies to the
more-or-less current meaning of these terms, when they have a meaning
and are not just pejoratives.

>>>But I still fail to see who saying that Napoleon and Julius Caesar were
>>>liberal (which they weren't) explains the behaviour of Saruman.
>>
>>They /were/ liberal in the way the terms were used classically. Well,
>>Julius Caesar certainly was.
>
>In what way?
>
>It's a while since I read any Roman history history of the period, but I don't
>recall recall his views or policies being particularly liberal. Imperialist,
>yes, since his memoirs of his military career go into considerable detail
>about how he brought various independent Gallic political formations under
>Roman rule and kept them there. But I don't recall him giving them votes in
>the Roman senatorial elections or anything like that.

You keep ignoring the point: your definition of "liberal" does not
apply to ancient Rome. Julius Caesar was "liberal" in the sense given
above, which has nothing to do with the definition you prefer.

You really need to expand your horizons and realize that other people
not only exist (or existed), but have (or had) their own definitions
of various words which, in some cases, are quite different from yours
but just as valid for them as yours are for you.

>>And of course it doesn't explain the behavious or Saruman. Saruman,
>>being a Maia, cannot, even hobbled, be a "liberal" or anything else in
>>any sense that pertains to Men and, since a "liberal" is short for a
>>"liberal man", the term definitely pertains to Men and not Maiar..
>
>Oh, I dunno about that. Gandalf was a Maia too, and he was liberal enough to
>want to liberate people from Sauron's oppression. And though he didn't play a
>very active role in the liberation of those oppressed by Saruman, he certainly
>encouraged Merry and Pippin to do so, and they weren't men either, they were
>hobbits.

Gandalf was not a Man, especially after Eru reprogrammed him. He could
not have been "a liberal" because "a liberal" is short for "a liberal
Man". This is simply a matter of what the words mean.

And who, exactly, was Sauron oppressing? Orcs, Trolls, Southrons, and
Easterlings. He wasn't /oppressing/ the people Gandalf was defending
because he didn't control them yet.

Gandalf was /defending/ those groups that were not yet oppressed. He
showed no interest in "liberating" those that were. Perhaps that is
what the Blue Wizards were supposed to be doing, at least insofar as
the Easterlings were concerned.

You really should read the book without your ideological filters.

>>But then the statement you are referring to may not have been intended
>>to explain anything. As best I can make out, it was intended to be a
>>witty, but meaningless, political comment. And that it certainly was,
>>at least IMHO.
>
>I thought it was neither witty nor true. It was just a rather puzzling non
>sequitur, which John W. Kennedy hasn't seen fit to explain. I usually find his
>comments on Tolkien's work perceptive and accurate, which makes that one even
>more puzzling.

You really do need to take off your ideological filters. Then you will
be able to see the wit involved.

And the statement is true (of Julius Caesar and Napoleon, anyway).
It's just that "liberal" doesn't mean what you insist it must mean, at
all times, and in all places, in defiance of the historical fact that
it's meaning has changed greatly over time.

Witty remarks require no explanation, and, often, cannot be explained.
That is the problem here.

I agree that John W Kennedy's remarks are generally both well informed
and well worth reading.

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 3:17:25 PM3/24/12
to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:23:34 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:26:20 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:49 -0700, Paul S. Person
>><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
><snippo>
>
>>>I do not doubt this; however, did Julius Caesar speak English? No? He
>>>didn't?
>>
>>>Then the original English meaning isn't really relevant here.
>>
>>I can't find "liberal" in my Latin dictionary. Caesar may have been "liber", a
>>free man, but he was not "liberalis" in the political sense of favouring
>>individual freedom, nor, to my knowledge, was Napoleon.
>
>Thanks for confirming my point: Julius Caesar was /not/ "a liberal" in
>the modern sense. He /was/ "a liberal" in the sense the term had in
>his own culture.

I didn't confirm it, I denied it. The term had no sense in his culture, none
whatsoever.

>>And, in the matter of Saruman, the outstanding liberals there were Merry and
>>Pippin, who not merely held liberal views, but acted on them, and so became
>>liberators as well as liberals. And that was something they repeated in the
>>scouring of the Shire.
>
>I'm afraid you are confused. Merry and Pippin were firmly embedded in
>the power structure, eventually inheriting two of the top positions in
>the Shire. They were, in modern non-pejoritive parlance, conservatives
>trying to restore the traditional values of the Shire.

The traditional values of the Shire tended to be liberal. The
Sackville-Bagginses tried to subvert them.

>>>Consulting White's (Latin Dictionary) for /liberalis/ gives the
>>>adjective the proper meaning
>>>
>>>of, or belonging to, a liber, or free man
>>
>>Quite, a free man is "liber", not "a liberal".
>>
>>Even slaves can be liberals if they think freedom is a good idea.
>
>Not in Rome. The concept you are trying to impose did not exist and so
>cannot be applied to anyone.

No, it is the concept that you are trying to impose that did not exist, and
cannot be applied to anyone.

>And, anyway, a slave who wishes to be free is not a "liberal" in any
>sense of the word; a man who opposes slavery as an institution would
>be a "liberal" in some (historical) cultures, but not in Rome because
>such persons did not exist.

True, in those days the notion of a state in which slave-ownership was not
possible was so remote as to be inconceivable.

But in our day, a man who is a slave might well be aware that there are states
in which slavery is illegal, and thus could have a hope of one day living in a
free society, and therefore could have liveral ideas and ideals.
>
>Keep in mind that, to a great extent, slavery was an alternative to
>death for conquered enemies.
>
>>>which is very interesting, since the _noun_ /liber/ is said to mean
>>>"child".
>
>What, no response here? Doesn't it seem strange that the dictionary
>should define /liber/, used as a noun, as "child" rather than "free
>man"?

I didn't see that in my dictionary. My dictionary, however, does define it as
the inner bark of a tree, and also as a deity. Does that call for comment?

>
>>>Intriguingly, the phrase "liberalis causa" is said to mean "a suit
>>>concerning a person's freedom"; the English "liberal cause" is, of
>>>course, completely different.
>>
>>It is?
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>How many lawsuits concerning a person's freedom have you seen lately?
>
>How many liberal causes exist?

It depends on whether or not you are talking about a lawsuit over a person's
freedom. In the country where I live, there would not be any such cases now
but there have been in the past, and the meaning of the term has not changed
when it applies to such cases.

It can, of course, asl be applied to other things,

>>>As a noun /liberalis/ means "a person of liberal feelings or
>>>education". This is also "by metonomy".

>>>And I don't recall Napoleon speaking English either; at least, not as
>>>his mother tongue, that is, the language that he thought in. I would
>>>be very surprised to learn that "liberal" could not mean "a man with a
>>>liberal education" in his day, but I suppose anything is possible.
>>
>>I doubt that it ever meant that.
>
>So, you don't believe White's was correct when it reported exactly
>that meaning? It certainly meant that in Julius Caesar's day. I
>suspect it still meant that (or could mean that, among other meanings)
>in Napoleon's day. It may even mean that, in some contexts, today, for
>all I know.

In what terms did "White's" report exactly that meaning?

Not that it makes much difference, because I fail to see how the question
whether Julius Caesar could be described as "a" liberal throws any light at
all on the behaviour of Saruman. And I continue to doubt that his
contemporaries would have regarded him as "a" liberal in any sense at all.
>
>>>That's the problem with some words: their meanings change so much
>>>across time and language and culture that it is very difficult, and
>>>occasionally impossible, to determine what they mean in any particular
>>>context.
>>>
>>>Incidentally, I am toying with the idea that attempting to force the
>>>any English meaning of "liberal" onto the language and culture of
>>>Julius Caesar is a form of imperialism, that is, a form of the belief
>>>that /my/ culture is superior to all others and must therefore be
>>>adopted by everyone else (well, at least those who can't fight back).
>>
>>Julius Caesar was more likely to have been an imperialist than a liberal,
>>since he became an imperator, though whether that was by accident or design
>>might be a moot point.
>
>Julius Caesar was a "liberal" in the sense that that word was defined
>in his culture. To impose a definition from any other culture, I am
>coming to believe, is a form of imperialism.

But the word was NOT defined in his culture. For a start, Latin did not have
articles, definite or indefinite, so that to say that he was "a" liberal in
the sense defined in his culture is simply untrue, because it wasn't defined
in his culture at all.

>As it happens, I am currently reading /Christianity and Classical
>Culture/ which, sadly, informs me that my preparation in classical
>studies was woefully inadequate. The Romans distinguished their
>culture from that of Greece but did not seek to impose their culture
>on the Hellenized East; indeed, the Roman culture changed over time as
>the Hellenized East infiltrated it. Christianity, of course, was one
>of those infiltrations; but so was the habit of treating the Imperator
>or Caesar as a god-on-earth.

Now THAT could be relevant to the behaviour of Saruman.

>>>And how often does a self-identified "liberal" call someone else a
>>>"liberal"? Compared to how often a self-identified "liberal" calls
>>>someone else a "conservative"?
>>
>>As a self-identified liberal, I often call other liberals liberal, as I do
>>here, for example:
>>
>>http://khanya.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/biography-of-peter-brown-south-african-liberal-leader/
>>
>>>That said, yes, some people who think of themselves as "liberal" (or
>>>"conservative") may occasionally use the term about people they like.
>>>But that is not the primary use seen in public discourse, particularly
>>>political discourse in the USA. It appears that I was imprecise.
>>
>>In the political sense, the opposite of "liberal" is not "conservative" but
>>"authoritarian" (which I think Julius Caesar may have been, and Napoleon
>>certainly was).
>>
>>A "conservative" is someone who wants to maintain the status quo, whatever
>>that may be. In a liberal society (which Saruman's was not) a liberal could
>>well be conservative. An an authoritarian society (which Saruman's was)
>>liberals like Merry and Pippin would be revolutionary.
>
>Nice attempt to redefine "conservative". Are you sure you are a
>"liberal"? The contrast with "authoritarian" suggests rather a
>"libertarian" or "anarchist". Note that this applies to the
>more-or-less current meaning of these terms, when they have a meaning
>and are not just pejoratives.

I wasn't attempting to "redefine" conservative at all. It's the definition I
learnt in school.

Or, if you want the dictionary definition:

"favouring the preservation of customs, values etc. and opposing innovation".

In other words, preserving the status quo.

The conservative mott is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that is good
conservatism. The trouble is that some conservatives don't want to fix it even
when it *is* broke, and that is the bad, stick-in-the-mud kind of
conservatism.

But if you want to see them on a scale of Left to Right (ah, where would we be
without the "left" and the "right", however ill-defined?) then it would look
something like this:

On the level of attitudes to freedom:

libertarian -- liberal -- authoritarian -- totalitarian

And on the level of attitudes to changing the status quo:

revolutionary -- radical -- conservative -- reactionary

Libertarian and totalitarian are at the extremes of one dimension, and
revolutionary and reactionary are at the extremes on the other dimension.

And if conservatives want to preserve the status quo, reactionaries want to
restore the status quo ante - they want to turn the clock back.

>
>>>>But I still fail to see who saying that Napoleon and Julius Caesar were
>>>>liberal (which they weren't) explains the behaviour of Saruman.
>>>
>>>They /were/ liberal in the way the terms were used classically. Well,
>>>Julius Caesar certainly was.
>>
>>In what way?
>>
>>It's a while since I read any Roman history history of the period, but I don't
>>recall recall his views or policies being particularly liberal. Imperialist,
>>yes, since his memoirs of his military career go into considerable detail
>>about how he brought various independent Gallic political formations under
>>Roman rule and kept them there. But I don't recall him giving them votes in
>>the Roman senatorial elections or anything like that.
>
>You keep ignoring the point: your definition of "liberal" does not
>apply to ancient Rome. Julius Caesar was "liberal" in the sense given
>above, which has nothing to do with the definition you prefer.

Well, whether he was liberal in the sense given above is a moot point. Was he
kind? Was he generous? I'm not sure. That is what "liberal" meant in those
days. But my point is that even if he was liberal in some sense, he was not
"a" liberal, Even if he was kind, hwe was not "a" kind. Even if he was
generous, he was not "a" generous. He was a soldier. He was a political
leader. Whether he was tall or short, you can no more call him "a" liberal
than you can say he was "a" tall or "a" short.

>You really need to expand your horizons and realize that other people
>not only exist (or existed), but have (or had) their own definitions
>of various words which, in some cases, are quite different from yours
>but just as valid for them as yours are for you.

And perhaps you need to rein in your imagination and realise that sometimes
those terms were not valid for them because they didn't have them at all. The
problem is not that the indefinite article means something different in Latin
from what it means in English. The problem was that Latin did not have the
indefinite article at all, so so say that it is just as valid for them as it
is for us is meaningless and nonsense.

>>>And of course it doesn't explain the behavious or Saruman. Saruman,
>>>being a Maia, cannot, even hobbled, be a "liberal" or anything else in
>>>any sense that pertains to Men and, since a "liberal" is short for a
>>>"liberal man", the term definitely pertains to Men and not Maiar..
>>
>>Oh, I dunno about that. Gandalf was a Maia too, and he was liberal enough to
>>want to liberate people from Sauron's oppression. And though he didn't play a
>>very active role in the liberation of those oppressed by Saruman, he certainly
>>encouraged Merry and Pippin to do so, and they weren't men either, they were
>>hobbits.
>
>Gandalf was not a Man, especially after Eru reprogrammed him. He could
>not have been "a liberal" because "a liberal" is short for "a liberal
>Man". This is simply a matter of what the words mean.
>
>And who, exactly, was Sauron oppressing? Orcs, Trolls, Southrons, and
>Easterlings. He wasn't /oppressing/ the people Gandalf was defending
>because he didn't control them yet.

Well, he was certainly sending his drones (Nazgul) over them.




>Gandalf was /defending/ those groups that were not yet oppressed. He
>showed no interest in "liberating" those that were. Perhaps that is
>what the Blue Wizards were supposed to be doing, at least insofar as
>the Easterlings were concerned.
>
>You really should read the book without your ideological filters.
>
>>>But then the statement you are referring to may not have been intended
>>>to explain anything. As best I can make out, it was intended to be a
>>>witty, but meaningless, political comment. And that it certainly was,
>>>at least IMHO.
>>
>>I thought it was neither witty nor true. It was just a rather puzzling non
>>sequitur, which John W. Kennedy hasn't seen fit to explain. I usually find his
>>comments on Tolkien's work perceptive and accurate, which makes that one even
>>more puzzling.
>
>You really do need to take off your ideological filters. Then you will
>be able to see the wit involved.
>
>And the statement is true (of Julius Caesar and Napoleon, anyway).
>It's just that "liberal" doesn't mean what you insist it must mean, at
>all times, and in all places, in defiance of the historical fact that
>it's meaning has changed greatly over time.
>
>Witty remarks require no explanation, and, often, cannot be explained.
>That is the problem here.
>
>I agree that John W Kennedy's remarks are generally both well informed
>and well worth reading.

--

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 5:40:09 PM3/24/12
to
There seems to be an ambiguity here in the phrase "completely fallen".
Yes, in the Second Age, Sauron had not fallen as far as he could, or
would, fall. But in both the history of Arda as it worked out, and in
Thomist doctrine (on the usual assumption that Ainur are angels), he
had fallen beyond hope of redemption, for, according to Aquinas, men
have minds that hop about from one thing to another, and can
consequently turn from evil to good, while angels' minds focus like a
laser on the main thing, and cannot go wrong without going permanently
wrong.

--
John W Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Paul S. Person

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 1:10:29 PM3/25/12
to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

This is getting to repetitious.

Enjoyable, but still, repetitious.

And time-consuming.

Thanks for the stimulation!

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 8:06:12 AM3/26/12
to
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:29 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>This is getting to repetitious.
>
>Enjoyable, but still, repetitious.
>
>And time-consuming.
>
>Thanks for the stimulation!

It doesn't have to be repetitious, though.

We could move on from the rather dull question whether Latin nouned adjecives
in the same ways as English to the more interesting question of the deity of
Saruman and the nature of his rule.

Taemon

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 11:53:55 AM3/26/12
to
Steve Hayes wrote:

> We could move on from the rather dull question whether Latin nouned
> adjecives in the same ways as English to the more interesting
> question of the deity of Saruman and the nature of his rule.

Or list all the possible meanings of "bit fear reribution".

T.


John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 7:44:39 PM3/26/12
to
On 2012-03-26 12:06:12 +0000, Steve Hayes said:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:29 -0700, Paul S. Person
> <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> This is getting to repetitious.
>>
>> Enjoyable, but still, repetitious.
>>
>> And time-consuming.
>>
>> Thanks for the stimulation!
>
> It doesn't have to be repetitious, though.
>
> We could move on from the rather dull question whether Latin nouned adjecives

That's what the word "substantive" was invented for.

> in the same ways as English to the more interesting question of the deity of
> Saruman and the nature of his rule.

--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 3:56:02 AM3/27/12
to
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:44:39 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
wrote:

>On 2012-03-26 12:06:12 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:29 -0700, Paul S. Person
>> <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is getting to repetitious.
>>>
>>> Enjoyable, but still, repetitious.
>>>
>>> And time-consuming.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the stimulation!
>>
>> It doesn't have to be repetitious, though.
>>
>> We could move on from the rather dull question whether Latin nouned adjecives
>
>That's what the word "substantive" was invented for.

Is there an alt.grammar.latin newsgroup?

John W Kennedy

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 9:49:28 AM3/27/12
to
On 2012-03-27 07:56:02 +0000, Steve Hayes said:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:44:39 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-26 12:06:12 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:29 -0700, Paul S. Person
>>> <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is getting to repetitious.
>>>>
>>>> Enjoyable, but still, repetitious.
>>>>
>>>> And time-consuming.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the stimulation!
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to be repetitious, though.
>>>
>>> We could move on from the rather dull question whether Latin nouned adjecives
>>
>> That's what the word "substantive" was invented for.
>
> Is there an alt.grammar.latin newsgroup?

There are alt.language.latin and humanities.classics

--
John W Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages