Please read the Guidelines that have been chosen to keep this forum soaring high!
Heavenletter #4837 Words do their best
Posted February 3rd, 2014 by Anais
Hello!
Can anyone help me understand and translate this sentence in French: ' Eternity is to words like Beingness to what? '
To me it doesn't make sense, as if there was a word missing or something..? It's in the forth paragraph.
Thanks a lot!
Anaïs
Anais, how happy we are that
Anais, how happy we are that you are translating Heavenletters into French. And that you come directly to this page to ask your questions. Now the test is to see if I can answer your question! Your question may well be a case of words not doing their best! I am going to go to the entire Heavenletter to see what I can see. I'll be right back!
Okay, I'm back. And what a Heavenletter this is!
Here is the context:
There is no defining Eternity any more than there is defining Me. True, the finite can bring you closer to Me and closer to an understanding of Infinity, yet there is no definitiveness in Eternity. Words do their best. There is only so far that words can go. The field of Eternity is wordless. We can say that the field of Eternity is without thought. Eternity is to words like Beingness to what? Your little self, perhaps.
I have to leave again for now your question is not in front of me.
Okay, here's your question:
Hello!
Can anyone help me understand and translate this sentence in French: ' Eternity is to words like Beingness to what? ' To me it doesn't make sense, as if there is a word missing or something..? It's in the forth paragraph. Thanks a lot!
Anaïs
I see that yes, there is a word missing! I forgot what this kind of comparison is called. An apple is to a peach as a ___ is to a ___.
Eternity is to words like Beingness is to -- what? Then in the next sentence God sort of answers your question: Your little self.
Eternity is to words as Beingness is to your little self.
Or God could have said, I believe: Eternity is to words as Being is to ego.
Eternity is Great and Vast. Words even have definitions. It's like comparing Beingness which is Great and Vast to something quite limited. Words are wonderful and beautiful and we love them, and even our little selves are wonderful and we love them, yet they are little as compared to Beingness. So God is comparing the Infinite to the finite.
This is such a remarkable Heavenletter. It is not a cinch to translate any Heavenletter into any language let alone this one into French.
You are so right, Anais, to want to understand to your satisfaction what you are translating. You are putting your heart and soul into translating Heavenletters.
I have to say that in English, the language in which I receive God's words, there are times when it is a challenge to grasp the meaning with certainty of what God is saying.
Thank you for asking your questions. Always ask them, and please let us know here whether this response has been helpful to you or not.
Anais, one more thing. I apologize to you. I believe I offered to introduce you to all the translators. No excuses, dear one, yet may I ask you to introduce yourself here? Or perhaps you have told your story on your Profile. In any case, will you introduce yourself here.
We are fortunate to have you and thank God for sending you to us. We thank God for all the translators who give us so much.
Sometimes I read a sentence
Sometimes I read a sentence in English and am at a loss and you, Anais, may have the same problem with this sentence now. I myself did not have difficulty translating this into Dutch for it just means what it says and I think in French it should just read:
L'éternité est à des mots comme Existence à quoi?
Now I see your beautiful
Now I see your beautiful response. Why can't I be that simple and concise?!!!! Thank you so much!
beingness - existence
Is beingness the same as existence?
They are nearby, yes, but the same?
Charles is. Helen is.
Charles exists. Helen exists.
Charles is a being. Helen is a being.
Charles is a being playing flute. Helen is a being playing flute.
Charles is a being being God's being. Helen is a being being God's being.
God is Charles' being, and God is Helen's being.
There is beingness. We might say, there is God's beingness, there is Charles' beingness, there is Helen's beingness, in fact, there is - Our - beingness.
BEINGNESS IS.
Beingness is beyond Helen's and Charles' existence.
Theophil
one more sentence which is not so clear?
Can we re-read the first sentence of the fourth paragraph from below, too?
But for the sake of communication, the thought forms of communication that language provides, We use words as best We can.
Thank you,
Theophil
We have brilliant
We have brilliant translators who ask such good questions!
Probably I should let Luus answer or Anais or any one of the translators, including you, beloved Theophil!
The way I see that sentence, its message is: We use words as best We can. That is the main thrust of that sentence. The rest is parenthetical.
God also intimates that for the sake of communicating, He will answer in the thought forms that language provides. Languages provides what it provides. God seems to imply that language can only go so far. For the sake of His desire to communicate with us, He, like language, will do His very best.
As someone seemed to indicate the other day, God kind of weaves and winds around the points He wants to make. I get the feeling that He wants us to find and explore the meaning within ourselves. He has said that facts or an answer by themselves are not enough at the same time as the whole thing is simple. He may want us to ask.
In your previous post just above this one, dear Theophil, you demonstrated an excellent point. Beingness is more than existence. What is it? The quality of Being? Oneness? It is hard to put into words, yet the word Beingness evokes so much.
Thank you all.
for the sake of communicating
Thank you, dear Gloria,
I missed to see that there is a second "for the sake of ...". In a longer version the sentence might be ...
But for the sake of communication, [for the sake of] the thought forms of communication that language provides, We use words as best We can.
In love,
Theophil
Ah, Theophil, you solved
Ah, Theophil, you solved this yourself while I was taking twenty times longer to reach your conclusion.
Anais, in Gloria's reply to
Anais, in Gloria's reply to you there is an unintentional typo which may confuse you if you notice it. It happens in the "missing" word that this whole post revolves around. Gloria gives you this example as a pattern for the sentence in question: "An apple is to a peach as a ___ US to a ___." I have capitalized the word "US" which I am sure Gloria meant to be "IS", except not in capital letters. Gloria can correct me if I am wrong. This is the sort of slip that I might easily make. It wouldn't matter except that this was your point of confusion.
I'm not fluent in French, but in the French translation which Luus gives you, I believe the second "est" is also missing, but it isn't really missing so much as understood, same as in English. The first use of "is" or "est" carrys over in your mind to the place where it appears to be missing, or you can actually use the word again. Either way is correct. Normand can correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, thank you, of course an
Yes, thank you, of course an IS. I corrected it now. How many typos can one person not see!!!! You are so needed, Charles.
Thanks a lot
Thank you all for these precious informations!
I understood the explanation of Gloria about this structure I didn't see in the sentence at first, this comparison. Thanks to the Dutch translator who tried a French translation. I can give you my final writing: L’Eternité est aux mots ce que l’Existence est à quoi ? Now it makes sense.
To Gloria: I thought I had already introduced myself here in the beginning. I'll check though.
@nais
Forgive me, dear one. There
Forgive me, dear one. There are too many things I keep in my mind. I want to be sure. You introduced yourself very well to me. In the forum I was thinking. I want to do a blog on every new translator, yet time does not permit. Its one of the things I most like to do and have to admit that I am unable to keep up with. Thank goodness you are here to so conscientiously come to Normand's assistance with French translations.
Love you,
Gloria
I think that Beingness and
I think that Beingness and Being should be translated (as Theophil exposed the distinction between 'being' and 'existing') by 'Êtreté' and 'Être'.
God makes this distinction between beingness and existence in His Heavenletters. Of course it is only my personal opinion.
Theophil, Gloria is on the
Theophil, Gloria is on the mark in her explanation of the sentence you questioned. This is how it might look inside the brain as it is being constructed:
1) We use words as best We can.
2) We use words as best We can for the sake of communication.
3) We use words (the thought forms of communication that language provides) as best We can for the sake of communication.
4) We use words, the thought forms of communication that language provides, as best We can for the sake of communication.
5) But for the sake of communication, [for the sake of] the thought forms of communication that language provides, We use words as best We can.
6) But for the sake of communication, the thought forms of communication that language provides, We use words as best We can.
That's a fairly complex sentence in English. If I were translating it, I believe I would go more for clear meaning than trying to match the sentence structure. Interesting that the basic meaning of the sentence, as Gloria points out, is what this whole discussion and indeed the whole forum is about. We use words as best we can.