Talk:agape

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:agape. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:agape, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:agape in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:agape you have here. The definition of the word Talk:agape will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:agape, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Request for verification

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

Rfv-sense: Both "Adverb" senses. The closest I can find to adverbial usage appears to be an adjective following a copula. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've altered the definitions to try to match with the PoS and the quotes, rearranged and supplemented the quotes. I've also added a usage note for the adjective. It would not be too hard to analyze the "adverbial" use as predicate use of the adjective with verbs like "fall", "stand" (door, not person), "hang", and "yawn"; and "sit", "stare", "watch", and "look". With the first four we would seem to be able to substitute "open", which no dictionary I have yet seem would classify as an adverb. It's all because Milton needed a stress on the second syllable. He could have written "set them gaping." But no. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

RFV passed. Thanks for the quotations, DCDuring. I'm actually not sure that they are necessarily adverb uses (the first sense's quotations could all use "open-mouthed" instead, and the second one's could all use "open" instead), but since I'm not sure that they aren't, either, I'm going to err on the side of keeping this. (It may be fodder for a tea room discussion, though.) —RuakhTALK 00:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

spanish translation

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone please correct my addition of a translation? There was no translation box and I do not know how to add one. Thanks --67.217.0.108 15:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

IMO

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I use agape with respect to God's love. If the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, derived from the doctrine of TULIP, it stands to reason that humans may not be capable of full, true agape, but that only the Holy Spirit, through them, at best, can manifest agape. At any rate it is problematic but if there is verified usage thereof who am I to argue with inclusion of the sense.

I think there are human emulations of agape but I don't know that it would be correct to characterize that as true agape. But if some denominations teach that it is the case, then it belongs in the 'ictionaries, but best cited and defined as restricted to the denominations which believe it.

Scripture is full of mistranslations like this . Agapè means like, not love (eròs). Likewise spiritus means breath or booze, not wit (vis, pneýma) nor wind (ventus, anemo, ruakh). Lysdexia (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia