Bring4th

I showed my friend the Law of One once, and he was immediately turned off of it because of their misuse of a/an when they said they are "an" humble messenger.

Why couldn't Ra get "a" right?

It was requested by your friend's Higher self perhaps? Lol.

Whether or not one uses "a" or "an" before a word that begins with H depends totally on the dialect and whether or not they stress the first syllable of the word.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questi...e-letter-h

Apparently Ra's alien version of English consists of them saying humble with a soft h, like honest, or herb.

Even native English speakers have trouble with the language (as evidenced by your friend who didn't know it was possible to correctly use "an" before a word that begins with h), so I wouldn't personally be too hard on Ra. Their grammar is quite good all things considered.

It's "an humble" consistently in Shakespeare. :)

Anything that calls itself humble is most likely not humble, so why block on the grammatical aspect?

I was just reading this Latwii and here Carla says "an harmonious":

Quote:All that you experience and all that you see and all that of what you hear is a portion of an harmonious development of creation which in every fiber praises, expresses and manifests that great original Thought of love.

http://llresearch.org/transcripts/issues..._1004.aspx

Might just be Ra using Carla's speaking mannerisms. Or maybe it's Carla using Ra's speaking mechanisms. Either way, I don't think it's incorrect to use "an" with an h word if you speak it with a soft h. English is riddled with exceptions to linguistic rules.

They're speaking through a mind and not a grammar book, I fail to see the issue.

Note to Ra, pick a grammar teacher as an instrument next time.

While I also fail to see the issue, Ra was speaking through Carla's body complex, not her mind complex.

Quote:21.1 Questioner: I have a couple of questions I don’t want to forget to ask in this period. I’ll ask them first.

The first question is: Would the future content of this book be affected in any way if the instrument reads the material we have already obtained?

Ra: I am Ra. The future, as you measure in time/space, communications which we offer through this instrument have no connection with the instrument’s mind complex. This is due to two things: first, the fidelity of the instrument in dedicating its will to the service of the Infinite Creator; secondly, the distortion/understanding of our social memory complex that the most efficient way to communicate material with as little distortion as possible, given the necessity of the use of sound vibration complexes, is to remove the conscious mind complex from the spirit/mind/body complex so that we may communicate without reference to any instrument orientation.

21.2 Questioner: A little appendage to this. Do you use your vocabulary or the instrument’s vocabulary to communicate with us?

Ra: I am Ra. We use the vocabulary of the language with which you are familiar. This is not the instrument’s vocabulary. However, this particular mind/body/spirit complex retains the use of a sufficiently large number of sound vibration complexes that the distinction is often without any importance.

However, they are not shy about saying that they are prone to errors and look forward to being corrected.

Quote:85.15 Questioner: Thank you. Do you have use of all of the words in the English language and, for that matter, all of the words in all languages that are spoken upon this planet at this time?

Ra: I am Ra. No.

Quote:Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

Quote:83.28 Questioner: I noticed you started this session with “I communicate now.” You usually use “We communicate now.” Is there any significance or difference with respect to that, and then is there anything that we can do to make the instrument more comfortable or improve the contact?

Ra: I am Ra. We am Ra. You may see the grammatical difficulties of your linguistic structure in dealing with a social memory complex. There is no distinction between the first person singular and plural in your language when pertaining to Ra.

Anyway, all I can think of is Carl Sagan, who says "human" with a silent H and a hard U every time, and I'm almost certain says "an human" at least once during Cosmos. I really think it's a personal linguistic choice. There are many dialects of English, personal affects, etc.

From a little more Googling, it seems that we tend to give a soft "h" to words with Latin origin, and a hard H to words with Germanic origin. "Humble" and "Human" are both of Latin origin, "home" being an example of a word with Germanic origin. I say both humble and human with a hard H though so while it does sound weird to me, I think it's just because it's just an archaic use of the language.

Or, it could be all part of Ra's plan to give an outright reason for people's Higher selves to reject the book before they are ready for it.

Some people without true interest in something always give excuses to give up. If your friend were skeptical and not pseudo skeptical he would have analyzed the words of Don (a PHD):

Quote:Our research group uses what I prefer to call “tuned trance telepathy” to communicate with an extraterrestrial race called Ra. We use the English language because it is known by Ra. In fact, Ra knows more of it than I do.

But the problem is try understand intellectually something that must be read with the hearth for a completely understand.

There are some quite confusing aspects about the way Ra speaks. In the instance of using "an" before an H if the H is soft (such as "an honest attempt"), it's considered grammatically. This is the general rule. However, in the audio, Ra hits that "H" pretty hard saying "humble," both times they say it. So they're not following that rule.

However, it's not the only place where "an humble" is used. A google search will return many, many results.

Another confusing thing is that they use the word "nexi" as a plural for nexus. This is not the plural of nexus in any system of grammar or language. While it is a Latin word, there were various ways to pluralize words ending in -us in Latin, and nexi was not the proper Latin pluralization.

Ra also implies at one point that they do use Carla's grammar, contradicting later points in which they claim not to:

Quote:4.14 Questioner: I’m a little confused. I partially understood you; I’m not sure that I fully understood you. Could you restate that in another way?

Ra: I can restate that in many ways, given this instrument’s knowledge of your vibratory sound complexes. I will strive for a shorter distortion at this time.

What relevance is the instrument's knowledge of vibratory sound complexes if they don't utilize that knowledge?

I think it's likely that Ra at least used Carla's speaking patterns or tendencies, but the whole thing is a bit confusing. It's a prime example of something to point to if one wishes to discredit or cast doubt on the legitimacy of the material. We could say that this is perhaps the reason for them doing so. That is always the convenient go-to - respect of free will.

(06-29-2017, 01:02 PM)Infinite Wrote: [ -> ]Some people without true interest in something always give excuses to give up. If your friend were skeptical and not pseudo skeptical he would have analyzed the words of Don (a PHD):

Don's PhD was from a non-accredited diploma mill. According to Carla, he got it so that he could stop correcting people when they called him doctor and wasn't really invested in the title it gave him. It's really not a good thing to cite to add credibility to Don's work. He did hold two Masters degrees in engineering.