From: Torsten
Message: 67148
Date: 2011-01-24
>In case that was a snide remark: Yes I perceived them as commonplaces, and irrelevant to the question to boot.
>
>
> >Thank you. Was that so hard?
>
> <Noble> means both
>
> -- aristocratic
> (Webster: "2: of high birth or exalted rank: aristocratic")
>
> -- and simply noble: superior, exquisite, generous
> etcetera (e.g. "it was highly noble gesture of mine
> that I wasted my time posting obvious common places
> to someone who don't perceive them as such").
>Not a single one of your quoted examples of 'von Geschlecht' had the meaning of "of aristocracy". The one you constructed yourself could be said to have the *inferred* sense of "of aristocracy", since from its literal sense of "of (noble) lineage" you may infer "of aristocracy".
> The same applies to its German translation, <edel>:
> -- adelig, aristokratisch or
> -- noble in the sense of edelmütig, nice, generous,
> for which there is also the German word <nobel>
> (e.g. "eine noble Geste von mir; eine noble Gesinnung"
> etc.).
>
> Every (but really every one!) of my examples
> has the meaning of ARISTOCRACY (ask the opinion
> of all other subscribers to cybalist).
> However, the secondary meaning of <noble>, notTrue that.
> pertaining to aristocracy is anyway IRRELEVANT.
> Because in your own topic, the Polish Szlachta,Indeed.
> its members were/are aristocrats, and not some
> other social groups.
> But one of your most striking, flabbergasting,I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. I have never made such an assertion.
> assertions is the one you made today: that a ...
> KING (!) is not noble. If a king is not a noble
> man, then "lasciate ogni speranza, voi,
> ch'entrate..."