Talk:Seventh son of a seventh son: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 74.71.82.82 - "" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
In the folklore, do intervening daughters break the sequence? Th first lines of the article say yes, but further down the same paragraph the answer is given as no. I'm removing both until we have an answer so as to avoid confusion. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.71.82.82|74.71.82.82]] ([[User talk:74.71.82.82|talk]]) 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
In the folklore, do intervening daughters break the sequence? Th first lines of the article say yes, but further down the same paragraph the answer is given as no. I'm removing both until we have an answer so as to avoid confusion. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.71.82.82|74.71.82.82]] ([[User talk:74.71.82.82|talk]]) 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Scratch that. I see that I was misreading it. However, I still don't see what the last part of the first paragraph means, as I don't understand what case is being referred to. Any explanation or rephrasing would be much appreciated. |
|||
Revision as of 00:57, 22 February 2008
This article should be linked to other relevant ones. Hydriotaphia 08:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Removing Biblical "reference"
i don't see any Biblical support of this "seventh son" notion. saying, "the Bible mentions the number 7, so it supports the seventh son concept!" is like saying, "people make swords, so Excalibur is real!" there's a connecting term (7 and 7, sword and a sword), but there's absolutely no logical connection. unless there is a specific verse that mentions "Seventh Son" in the Bible, then this reference should be removed.
Either the reference was removed or you are reading this wrong.
Discworld reference
From Sourcery
There was an eighth son of an eighth son. He was quite naturally, a wizard. And there it should have ended. However (for reasons we'd better not go into), he had seven sons. And then he had an eighth son ... a wizard squared ... a source of magic ... a Sourcerer.
Found here: http://www.voidspace.org.uk/cyberpunk/pratchett_summary.shtml
Meaning?
The seventh son of a seventh son is which of the following?
- The seventh child (a son) born to a mother and father then begets at least seven more children, the seventh who is a son.
- Seven sons are born to a mother and father (although they may have more than 7 children), and the son 7th in line then also begets at least seven sons.
- Seven lineages all bear a son, followed by seven more lineages who all bear a son.
Can someone please clarify and update the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1000Faces (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
I think that it's the second one.
Contradiction
In the folklore, do intervening daughters break the sequence? Th first lines of the article say yes, but further down the same paragraph the answer is given as no. I'm removing both until we have an answer so as to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.82.82 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. I see that I was misreading it. However, I still don't see what the last part of the first paragraph means, as I don't understand what case is being referred to. Any explanation or rephrasing would be much appreciated.