You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
You find pot-ens and pot-en-ti-a in the liturgical books, but I consider these hyphenations to be based on a faulty overgeneralization.
It is correct to hyphenate pot-es, pot-est and the like, because in this case the first element is a shortened potis and the second element a form of esse.
But potens is not a compound of potis and ens. The participle ens of esse has been introduced artificially in the late antiquity to translate the corresponding Greek participle. It was not known in classical times. potens is older than ens and derives from a lost verb potere. It should be hyphenated po-tens just as pæ-ni-tens, the participle of pænitere. The same holds for po-ten-ti-a.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
You find
pot-ens
andpot-en-ti-a
in the liturgical books, but I consider these hyphenations to be based on a faulty overgeneralization.It is correct to hyphenate
pot-es
,pot-est
and the like, because in this case the first element is a shortened potis and the second element a form of esse.But potens is not a compound of potis and ens. The participle ens of esse has been introduced artificially in the late antiquity to translate the corresponding Greek participle. It was not known in classical times.
potens is older than ens and derives from a lost verb potere. It should be hyphenated
po-tens
just aspæ-ni-tens
, the participle of pænitere. The same holds forpo-ten-ti-a
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: