1.for with God nothing shall be impossible.
2. with God nothing id impossible.
Hey toby, I am not sure exactly what you mean by “with god”. Do you mean “with god on your side”, i.e. having accepted god, or do you mean “when it comes to god/ as regards god etc.”, i.e. god can do everything?
~dave
It’s Lk 1:37 (more or less) in English: an explanation of how the barren Elizabeth has become pregnant.
The Vulgate has quia non erit inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum, which seems at first sight an odd use of verbum but is very close to the Greek ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα..
Perhaps someone with more than my rudimentary koine could explain the idiom.
Is that inpossibile or impossibile?
According to Perseus in, but I don’t have the text in print, so I can’t cross-check it. Odd I agree.
there is no meaningful palaeographical distinction between inp- and imp-.
~dave
there is no meaningful palaeographical distinction between inp- and imp-.
Thanks, that’s interesting. I would have imaginedthat there was a clear paleographical distinction between inp and imp (they are not “the same”, in the sense that, say, uncial “A” is the same as miniscule “a” though they look rather different), although the difference may not be orthographically significant. If confronted with two manuscripts, one “inp” the other “imp”, would one not bother to note the difference in a critical edition?
Such differences would (generally) appear in critical apparatuses but that is not my point. The writing of inp- or imp- would be purely at the scribe’s discretion and it appears that in the manuscript tradition there were “seasons”, as it were, of what spelling was to be favoured over the other for various consonant collocations. Therefore it is almost impossible to ascertain what the original palaeographic script of Latin was in many instances at any given point, so to write Latin now with imp- or inp- is a fruitless debate.
~dave
Yes, I see. Like -ize and -ise in English. Variant spellings, each equally “acceptable”.