Question about correct wording with "partile"

[Neptunian]

In Rodden's book _Modern Transits_ (A.F.A., 1978), she repeatedly used
wording similar to the following:

"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying and one degree
separating TO partile." (p.6, emphasis mine)

As a new student of astrology back in the 1980's, I mistakenly thought
that "partile" meant complete separation, and now I believe that that
was because of this wording with "to" in my first book on transits.

Of course, I later learned that I had inferred the wrong meaning for
this word -- that "partile" actually means when the transit aspect
goes exact.

Re-reading Rodden's book today, I'm reminded of this and wondering if
"separating to partile" is actually incorrect wording (thus making my
error a reasonable mistake) or if that is standard phraseology.

I would say it thus: "It has a two-day influence of one degree
applying to and separating from partile."

BTW, Google gave me zero results for "separate to partile", "separates
to partile" and "separating to partile".

Thanks for your comments.

Byron

[don hindenach]

Post by Neptunian
In Rodden's book _Modern Transits_ (A.F.A., 1978), she repeatedly used
"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying and one degree
separating TO partile." (p.6, emphasis mine)
As a new student of astrology back in the 1980's, I mistakenly thought
that "partile" meant complete separation, and now I believe that that
was because of this wording with "to" in my first book on transits.
Of course, I later learned that I had inferred the wrong meaning for
this word -- that "partile" actually means when the transit aspect
goes exact.
Re-reading Rodden's book today, I'm reminded of this and wondering if
"separating to partile" is actually incorrect wording (thus making my
error a reasonable mistake) or if that is standard phraseology.
I would say it thus: "It has a two-day influence of one degree
applying to and separating from partile."
BTW, Google gave me zero results for "separate to partile", "separates
to partile" and "separating to partile".
Thanks for your comments.

Byron,

The mistake in understanding comes from attempting to simplify the sentence to a
too-small single phrase that is contained in the sentence. If you need to
break the sentence apart, the phrase is "one degree applying and one degree
separating to partile". Read this entire a few times and it all becomes clear.


In your defense the whole of astrology is, in my opinion, a bit hobbled by
archaic use of language in attempting to impart meaning.

[Neptunian]

Post by don hindenach

Post by Neptunian
In Rodden's book _Modern Transits_ (A.F.A., 1978), she repeatedly used
"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying and one degree
separating TO partile." (p.6, emphasis mine)
As a new student of astrology back in the 1980's, I mistakenly thought
that "partile" meant complete separation, and now I believe that that
was because of this wording with "to" in my first book on transits.
Of course, I later learned that I had inferred the wrong meaning for
this word -- that "partile" actually means when the transit aspect
goes exact.
Re-reading Rodden's book today, I'm reminded of this and wondering if
"separating to partile" is actually incorrect wording (thus making my
error a reasonable mistake) or if that is standard phraseology.
I would say it thus:  "It has a two-day influence of one degree
applying to and separating from partile."
BTW, Google gave me zero results for "separate to partile", "separates
to partile" and "separating to partile".
Thanks for your comments.

Byron,
The mistake in understanding comes from attempting to simplify the sentence to a
too-small single  phrase that is contained in the sentence.  If you need to
break the sentence apart, the phrase is "one degree applying and one degree
separating to partile".  Read this entire a few times and it all becomes clear.
In your defense the whole of astrology is, in my opinion, a bit hobbled by
archaic use of language in attempting to impart meaning.
--
 -donh-
donh at audiosys dot com

Thanks, Don. I do see it better from that perspective, and thanks for
noting that it's archaic. I feel less "dumb"!

I also see that I didn't even type my own version completely. What I
meant to write was:

"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying to and one degree
separating from partile."

That's only one word longer than the original, but a novice could
actually guess the correct meaning of the word "partile" from the
context.

Byron

[don hindenach]

Post by Neptunian

Post by don hindenach

Post by Neptunian
In Rodden's book _Modern Transits_ (A.F.A., 1978), she repeatedly used
"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying and one degree
separating TO partile." (p.6, emphasis mine)
As a new student of astrology back in the 1980's, I mistakenly thought
that "partile" meant complete separation, and now I believe that that
was because of this wording with "to" in my first book on transits.
Of course, I later learned that I had inferred the wrong meaning for
this word -- that "partile" actually means when the transit aspect
goes exact.
Re-reading Rodden's book today, I'm reminded of this and wondering if
"separating to partile" is actually incorrect wording (thus making my
error a reasonable mistake) or if that is standard phraseology.
I would say it thus: �"It has a two-day influence of one degree
applying to and separating from partile."
BTW, Google gave me zero results for "separate to partile", "separates
to partile" and "separating to partile".
Thanks for your comments.

Byron,
The mistake in understanding comes from attempting to simplify the sentence to a
too-small single �phrase that is contained in the sentence. �If you need to
break the sentence apart, the phrase is "one degree applying and one degree
separating to partile". �Read this entire a few times and it all becomes clear.
In your defense the whole of astrology is, in my opinion, a bit hobbled by
archaic use of language in attempting to impart meaning.
--
�-donh-
donh at audiosys dot com

Thanks, Don. I do see it better from that perspective, and thanks for
noting that it's archaic. I feel less "dumb"!
I also see that I didn't even type my own version completely. What I
"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying to and one degree
separating from partile."
That's only one word longer than the original, but a novice could
actually guess the correct meaning of the word "partile" from the
context.
Byron

there ya go! :-)

[[e-mail]]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:36:27 -0500, "don hindenach"

Post by don hindenach

Post by Neptunian
In Rodden's book _Modern Transits_ (A.F.A., 1978), she repeatedly used
"It has a two-day influence of one degree applying and one degree
separating TO partile." (p.6, emphasis mine)
As a new student of astrology back in the 1980's, I mistakenly thought
that "partile" meant complete separation, and now I believe that that
was because of this wording with "to" in my first book on transits.
Of course, I later learned that I had inferred the wrong meaning for
this word -- that "partile" actually means when the transit aspect
goes exact.
Re-reading Rodden's book today, I'm reminded of this and wondering if
"separating to partile" is actually incorrect wording (thus making my
error a reasonable mistake) or if that is standard phraseology.
I would say it thus: "It has a two-day influence of one degree
applying to and separating from partile."
BTW, Google gave me zero results for "separate to partile", "separates
to partile" and "separating to partile".
Thanks for your comments.

Byron,
The mistake in understanding comes from attempting to simplify the sentence to a
too-small single phrase that is contained in the sentence. If you need to
break the sentence apart, the phrase is "one degree applying and one degree
separating to partile". Read this entire a few times and it all becomes clear.
In your defense the whole of astrology is, in my opinion, a bit hobbled by
archaic use of language in attempting to impart meaning.

The language isn't archaic unless you aren't using it. :-)