Re: MS 991 unexpected impact in contacts eastward.

From: Larry Swain (theswain_at_operamail.com)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:06:36 -0500

Seppo Renfors wrote:
>

> Yep, I'm aware of the many permutations - but I'm shocked at the
> limited literacy capacity expressed by people in this group. It
> appears to be endemic among a certain sector here - and they think of
> themselves as a called "elite"! Hell the same people don't even know
> how to use a knife and a fork at the same time, and claim that
> inability as a "cultured and good manners" (that from personal
> observation)!! Just because a word isn't used daily it still exists in
> the form used and has the meanings expressed - even by the OED as
> current use terminology.
>
> Here are a few uses of the term "tract" claimed not to exist:
>
> http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Malcolm0180/17thCTracts/PDFs/Vol2/0086-2_Pt05_03Scobell.pdf
> "The tract reprinted here fits into this genre. Scobell had, at least
> once before, signed a tract with his initials. There is no record this
> tract appeared during Scobell’s lifetime. It may have been a report he
> had composed that remained many years in manuscript. The motive of its
> publication in 1680 was to enhance the prestige of Parliament and the
> House of Commons as a court at a crucial time."

Wow, still proving my point, thanks very much. The author of
that little intro is not talking about a treaty, hence your
claim that "tract" "tractate" and "treaty" in modern English are
all the same thing remains unsubstantiated.

>
> http://www.bible-truth.org/msg59.html
> "...they recited a prayer, walked an isle, were baptized, signed a
> tract, spoke in tongues, were slain in the spirit, or had some
> experience they are saved."

See above, still not a treaty.

> http://www.worldmissions.com/russmann/archives/ekklesia/2004/03/jack_chick.html
> "Since he first began publishing tracts, Jack Chick has distributed
> over...."

Still see no treaties.
 
> http://lftl.ag.org/gi-jrcouncilmen.cfm
> "Get a tract signed by a home or foreign missionary"

No treaty here either.
 
> http://www.notbored.org/UU.html
> "In August 1956, a tract signed by the groups....."

Now you're getting close--regrettably this is a translation of a
text originally written in French and is only as good as the
translator. Let's compare the French text with the English and
see how good it is, if you can supply the French text. Oh, and
I don't think translations are the best representatives of
standard English usage and practice. There is some similarity
but also a difference between contract, compact, and
treaty....without the French here it is difficult to know if the
translator chose the best word to represent the original. Thus,
it does you no good.

 
> http://www.ciaonet.org/book/the01/the01_18.pdf
> "....translation of a tract signed Shaykh Ahmad Muhiyaddin Shaaban,
> May....."
 
Still not a treaty.

> http://www.said-hajji.com/en/book-preface.html
> "Said, having just returned permanently that year from the Middle
> East, signed a contract as a proxy to represent the magazine's
> interests in southern zone."

Contract.

> http://www.room85.com/docs2003/Unit5/SupremeCourt/Unit5%20SupremeCourtHistory.doc
> "...may have been the March 1956 "Declaration of Constitutional
> Principles", a tract signed by 101 of 128 members of Congress from
> eleven southern and border states....."

This isn't a treaty either, but rather a political writing that
the signees ascribe to.

Let me remind you that when Alan Crozier wrote: "Where in the
treaty (not trakta)...." you replied saying "Same thing you
know." YOu have sucessfully since then proven what need not
have been proven: that tract and tractate are closely related
terms. But you have not done so for "treaty."

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS 991 unexpected impact in contacts eastward.
    ... Larry S seems to have missed that there is a word 'tract' which can be used ... for treaty. ... tract = Short treatise or discorse esp. ... Which is also is the only English word I and my friends have heard used by ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • The Queen is not Duke of Normandy (olim: The Queen still Duchess of Edinburgh?)
    ... History is that "Duke of Normandy" was a French ... the Treaty of Paris, which excluded and has no application whatever to ... English King accepted to renounce his claim to the most part of the ... Henry III is called in French "li rois d'Engleterre" ("the King of ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: MS 991 unexpected impact in contacts eastward.
    ... > Inger E Johansson wrote: ... >> Which means that a treaty is what's negotiated upon but the written text ... > "The tract reprinted here fits into this genre. ... > interests in southern zone." ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Why did France fight UK (in North Africa)
    ... Britain and France were Allies bound by a treaty - France broke the ... Too bad that the British didn't take as sanguine a view of treaty ... attack on French ships elsewhere: ... Making sure that Vichy neutrality violations be either discouraged ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: MS 991 unexpected impact in contacts eastward.
    ... > Larry S seems to have missed that there is a word 'tract' which can be ... > tract = Short treatise or discorse esp. ... > Which means that a treaty is what's negotiated upon but the written text ... > Which is also is the only English word I and my friends have heard used by ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading