Another immaculate conception

[Benjamin Barrett]

On May 18, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Wilson Gray <hwgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at ix.netcom.com>
> quoted:
>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=3D3Dind1012C&L=3D3DADS-L&P=
> =3D3DR6=3D
>> 892&I=3D3D-3&X=3D3D0B5885737CEF3FC2B4, people often misunderstand
>> what "immaculate conception" means. (The virgin conception of Mary being =
> =3D
>> included in the term "virgin birth" is not transparent.)
>
>
> "people often misunderstand what 'immaculate conception' means."
>
> True, but it's not meant to be understood by random "people," though it's
> not Masonically "secret" or anything. It's Catholic in-group jargon and we
> know what it means.
>
> "The virgin conception of Mary being included in the term 'virgin birth' is
> not transparent."
>
> This sentence isn't transparent, either. I don't know what's meant by "the
> virgin conception of Mary" and "virgin birth has nothing to do with the
> Immaculate Conception,

What I meant was that the idea that Mary was a virgin when she conceived comes under the term "virgin birth." It makes sense that people would latch onto "immaculate conception" as referring to her being a virgin when she conceived.

Benjamin Barrett
Seattle, WA

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org