If trinity means 3 in one, what's the word for one in one, 2 in one, 4 in one, 5 in one?












10














In Christianity, there is the doctrine of the "trinity" of God. What would be the name of the corresponding doctrine if the number three were replaced with two, four or five?






single-word-requests terminology







share|improve this question




















  • 10




    Well, all I know is the word for six in one is sixpack. ;-)
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:39






  • 6




    BTW: We wouldn't say "3 monotheistic Gods make up the Trinity". The whole point of the idea of the Trinity is that there is only one monotheistic God -- hence the "mono" part -- but he is made up of 3 persons. That is, we say "3 persons of God make up the Trinity".
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:46






  • 1




    I was joking. In logic, if you can proof an absurdity you can proof anything. In practice, if you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them do anything. +1 for all the witty comments.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:31








  • 4




    -1 Vote to close as not constructive. If you want to joke about other people's religion, find another forum.
    – JeffSahol
    Dec 17 '11 at 16:40






  • 1




    @JimThio, Seriously? What has this English question even got to do with religion (unless you're primed to think that way)? So all words used by religion become automatically off-limits? That's thousands upon thousands of words barred.
    – Pacerier
    Mar 24 '17 at 7:10


















10














In Christianity, there is the doctrine of the "trinity" of God. What would be the name of the corresponding doctrine if the number three were replaced with two, four or five?






single-word-requests terminology







share|improve this question




















  • 10




    Well, all I know is the word for six in one is sixpack. ;-)
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:39






  • 6




    BTW: We wouldn't say "3 monotheistic Gods make up the Trinity". The whole point of the idea of the Trinity is that there is only one monotheistic God -- hence the "mono" part -- but he is made up of 3 persons. That is, we say "3 persons of God make up the Trinity".
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:46






  • 1




    I was joking. In logic, if you can proof an absurdity you can proof anything. In practice, if you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them do anything. +1 for all the witty comments.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:31








  • 4




    -1 Vote to close as not constructive. If you want to joke about other people's religion, find another forum.
    – JeffSahol
    Dec 17 '11 at 16:40






  • 1




    @JimThio, Seriously? What has this English question even got to do with religion (unless you're primed to think that way)? So all words used by religion become automatically off-limits? That's thousands upon thousands of words barred.
    – Pacerier
    Mar 24 '17 at 7:10
















10












10








10


2





In Christianity, there is the doctrine of the "trinity" of God. What would be the name of the corresponding doctrine if the number three were replaced with two, four or five?






single-word-requests terminology







share|improve this question















In Christianity, there is the doctrine of the "trinity" of God. What would be the name of the corresponding doctrine if the number three were replaced with two, four or five?






single-word-requests terminology




single-word-requests terminology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 17 '18 at 1:46









sumelic

46k8108211




46k8108211










asked Dec 17 '11 at 4:25









user4951

79681625




79681625








  • 10




    Well, all I know is the word for six in one is sixpack. ;-)
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:39






  • 6




    BTW: We wouldn't say "3 monotheistic Gods make up the Trinity". The whole point of the idea of the Trinity is that there is only one monotheistic God -- hence the "mono" part -- but he is made up of 3 persons. That is, we say "3 persons of God make up the Trinity".
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:46






  • 1




    I was joking. In logic, if you can proof an absurdity you can proof anything. In practice, if you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them do anything. +1 for all the witty comments.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:31








  • 4




    -1 Vote to close as not constructive. If you want to joke about other people's religion, find another forum.
    – JeffSahol
    Dec 17 '11 at 16:40






  • 1




    @JimThio, Seriously? What has this English question even got to do with religion (unless you're primed to think that way)? So all words used by religion become automatically off-limits? That's thousands upon thousands of words barred.
    – Pacerier
    Mar 24 '17 at 7:10
















  • 10




    Well, all I know is the word for six in one is sixpack. ;-)
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:39






  • 6




    BTW: We wouldn't say "3 monotheistic Gods make up the Trinity". The whole point of the idea of the Trinity is that there is only one monotheistic God -- hence the "mono" part -- but he is made up of 3 persons. That is, we say "3 persons of God make up the Trinity".
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:46






  • 1




    I was joking. In logic, if you can proof an absurdity you can proof anything. In practice, if you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them do anything. +1 for all the witty comments.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:31








  • 4




    -1 Vote to close as not constructive. If you want to joke about other people's religion, find another forum.
    – JeffSahol
    Dec 17 '11 at 16:40






  • 1




    @JimThio, Seriously? What has this English question even got to do with religion (unless you're primed to think that way)? So all words used by religion become automatically off-limits? That's thousands upon thousands of words barred.
    – Pacerier
    Mar 24 '17 at 7:10










10




10




Well, all I know is the word for six in one is sixpack. ;-)
– Jonathan Van Matre
Dec 17 '11 at 5:39




Well, all I know is the word for six in one is sixpack. ;-)
– Jonathan Van Matre
Dec 17 '11 at 5:39




6




6




BTW: We wouldn't say "3 monotheistic Gods make up the Trinity". The whole point of the idea of the Trinity is that there is only one monotheistic God -- hence the "mono" part -- but he is made up of 3 persons. That is, we say "3 persons of God make up the Trinity".
– Jay
Dec 17 '11 at 5:46




BTW: We wouldn't say "3 monotheistic Gods make up the Trinity". The whole point of the idea of the Trinity is that there is only one monotheistic God -- hence the "mono" part -- but he is made up of 3 persons. That is, we say "3 persons of God make up the Trinity".
– Jay
Dec 17 '11 at 5:46




1




1




I was joking. In logic, if you can proof an absurdity you can proof anything. In practice, if you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them do anything. +1 for all the witty comments.
– user4951
Dec 17 '11 at 6:31






I was joking. In logic, if you can proof an absurdity you can proof anything. In practice, if you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them do anything. +1 for all the witty comments.
– user4951
Dec 17 '11 at 6:31






4




4




-1 Vote to close as not constructive. If you want to joke about other people's religion, find another forum.
– JeffSahol
Dec 17 '11 at 16:40




-1 Vote to close as not constructive. If you want to joke about other people's religion, find another forum.
– JeffSahol
Dec 17 '11 at 16:40




1




1




@JimThio, Seriously? What has this English question even got to do with religion (unless you're primed to think that way)? So all words used by religion become automatically off-limits? That's thousands upon thousands of words barred.
– Pacerier
Mar 24 '17 at 7:10






@JimThio, Seriously? What has this English question even got to do with religion (unless you're primed to think that way)? So all words used by religion become automatically off-limits? That's thousands upon thousands of words barred.
– Pacerier
Mar 24 '17 at 7:10












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















19














To the best of my knowledge, owing to various heresies and schisms in the Christian faith we presently have the following forms of monotheistic doctrine:



Unity - Espoused by the Unitarians, who reject the consubstantiation of God and hold that He is strictly a single person. Jesus is regarded by Unitarians as a prophet who is not a part of the godhead.



Binity - Advocated by the Binitarians, who believe in the co-divinity of Jesus the Son and God the Father. What I find particularly interesting about them is that they believe Jesus was fully divine and co-eternal prior to becoming human, but that he fully surrendered his divinity while in human form, only to regain it in resurrection. This differs from the standard mainstream trinitarian view that Jesus the man was both divine and human.



So to make it really confusing, the Binitarians treat Jesus as a unity at all times, while the trinitarians see his human form as a binity. Still with me? :D



Trinity - The orthodox mainline Christian theology of the coexistent, coeternal three in one: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



I am not aware of any further such terms of particular Christian significance, but there's a seemingly Scientology-like thing called the Hoffman Quadrinity Process that is all over the Internet and apparently in several countries.



If the Pope ever did pronounce the five-fold nature of God, I expect the word would continue to be based on the Latin root -nitas, and so following the pattern it would be quintinity.



Me, I'm signing up as an infinitarian. If the godhead has constituent parts, it's some unquantifiable number in one. An infinity.






share|improve this answer





















  • +1. THis is an even better answer.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:29






  • 1




    I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:39






  • 1




    In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 18:58












  • Or maybe quinity?
    – Peter Shor
    Dec 17 '11 at 23:25










  • +1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
    – Kris
    Dec 19 '11 at 6:24



















8














Duality is 2 in 1,
Trinity is 3 in 1,
Quadrality is 4 in 1



That's as far as I know them.



Primality should work for 1 in 1, at least from the mathematical point of view.






share|improve this answer

















  • 3




    Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
    – Gnawme
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:01






  • 4




    Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
    – alcas
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:17










  • @alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:43










  • I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:53










  • @Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
    – ThePopMachine
    Dec 18 '11 at 14:57





















2














I take it that this is not an entirely serious question, so here's a not entirely serious answer. A quadripartite deity would be a tetrakism and a quintipartite one would be a pentalogy.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:42












  • @FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
    – Barrie England
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:45










  • Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:53






  • 1




    @FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
    – Jay
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:01






  • 1




    @Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:14



















-1














My head hurts. I read every world. Wow, are you guys ever INTELLIGENT. I was just looking for "Quadrinity" and found it, and then some. My brain feels full.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago










  • I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52014%2fif-trinity-means-3-in-one-whats-the-word-for-one-in-one-2-in-one-4-in-one-5%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









19














To the best of my knowledge, owing to various heresies and schisms in the Christian faith we presently have the following forms of monotheistic doctrine:



Unity - Espoused by the Unitarians, who reject the consubstantiation of God and hold that He is strictly a single person. Jesus is regarded by Unitarians as a prophet who is not a part of the godhead.



Binity - Advocated by the Binitarians, who believe in the co-divinity of Jesus the Son and God the Father. What I find particularly interesting about them is that they believe Jesus was fully divine and co-eternal prior to becoming human, but that he fully surrendered his divinity while in human form, only to regain it in resurrection. This differs from the standard mainstream trinitarian view that Jesus the man was both divine and human.



So to make it really confusing, the Binitarians treat Jesus as a unity at all times, while the trinitarians see his human form as a binity. Still with me? :D



Trinity - The orthodox mainline Christian theology of the coexistent, coeternal three in one: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



I am not aware of any further such terms of particular Christian significance, but there's a seemingly Scientology-like thing called the Hoffman Quadrinity Process that is all over the Internet and apparently in several countries.



If the Pope ever did pronounce the five-fold nature of God, I expect the word would continue to be based on the Latin root -nitas, and so following the pattern it would be quintinity.



Me, I'm signing up as an infinitarian. If the godhead has constituent parts, it's some unquantifiable number in one. An infinity.






share|improve this answer





















  • +1. THis is an even better answer.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:29






  • 1




    I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:39






  • 1




    In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 18:58












  • Or maybe quinity?
    – Peter Shor
    Dec 17 '11 at 23:25










  • +1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
    – Kris
    Dec 19 '11 at 6:24
















19














To the best of my knowledge, owing to various heresies and schisms in the Christian faith we presently have the following forms of monotheistic doctrine:



Unity - Espoused by the Unitarians, who reject the consubstantiation of God and hold that He is strictly a single person. Jesus is regarded by Unitarians as a prophet who is not a part of the godhead.



Binity - Advocated by the Binitarians, who believe in the co-divinity of Jesus the Son and God the Father. What I find particularly interesting about them is that they believe Jesus was fully divine and co-eternal prior to becoming human, but that he fully surrendered his divinity while in human form, only to regain it in resurrection. This differs from the standard mainstream trinitarian view that Jesus the man was both divine and human.



So to make it really confusing, the Binitarians treat Jesus as a unity at all times, while the trinitarians see his human form as a binity. Still with me? :D



Trinity - The orthodox mainline Christian theology of the coexistent, coeternal three in one: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



I am not aware of any further such terms of particular Christian significance, but there's a seemingly Scientology-like thing called the Hoffman Quadrinity Process that is all over the Internet and apparently in several countries.



If the Pope ever did pronounce the five-fold nature of God, I expect the word would continue to be based on the Latin root -nitas, and so following the pattern it would be quintinity.



Me, I'm signing up as an infinitarian. If the godhead has constituent parts, it's some unquantifiable number in one. An infinity.






share|improve this answer





















  • +1. THis is an even better answer.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:29






  • 1




    I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:39






  • 1




    In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 18:58












  • Or maybe quinity?
    – Peter Shor
    Dec 17 '11 at 23:25










  • +1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
    – Kris
    Dec 19 '11 at 6:24














19












19








19






To the best of my knowledge, owing to various heresies and schisms in the Christian faith we presently have the following forms of monotheistic doctrine:



Unity - Espoused by the Unitarians, who reject the consubstantiation of God and hold that He is strictly a single person. Jesus is regarded by Unitarians as a prophet who is not a part of the godhead.



Binity - Advocated by the Binitarians, who believe in the co-divinity of Jesus the Son and God the Father. What I find particularly interesting about them is that they believe Jesus was fully divine and co-eternal prior to becoming human, but that he fully surrendered his divinity while in human form, only to regain it in resurrection. This differs from the standard mainstream trinitarian view that Jesus the man was both divine and human.



So to make it really confusing, the Binitarians treat Jesus as a unity at all times, while the trinitarians see his human form as a binity. Still with me? :D



Trinity - The orthodox mainline Christian theology of the coexistent, coeternal three in one: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



I am not aware of any further such terms of particular Christian significance, but there's a seemingly Scientology-like thing called the Hoffman Quadrinity Process that is all over the Internet and apparently in several countries.



If the Pope ever did pronounce the five-fold nature of God, I expect the word would continue to be based on the Latin root -nitas, and so following the pattern it would be quintinity.



Me, I'm signing up as an infinitarian. If the godhead has constituent parts, it's some unquantifiable number in one. An infinity.






share|improve this answer












To the best of my knowledge, owing to various heresies and schisms in the Christian faith we presently have the following forms of monotheistic doctrine:



Unity - Espoused by the Unitarians, who reject the consubstantiation of God and hold that He is strictly a single person. Jesus is regarded by Unitarians as a prophet who is not a part of the godhead.



Binity - Advocated by the Binitarians, who believe in the co-divinity of Jesus the Son and God the Father. What I find particularly interesting about them is that they believe Jesus was fully divine and co-eternal prior to becoming human, but that he fully surrendered his divinity while in human form, only to regain it in resurrection. This differs from the standard mainstream trinitarian view that Jesus the man was both divine and human.



So to make it really confusing, the Binitarians treat Jesus as a unity at all times, while the trinitarians see his human form as a binity. Still with me? :D



Trinity - The orthodox mainline Christian theology of the coexistent, coeternal three in one: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



I am not aware of any further such terms of particular Christian significance, but there's a seemingly Scientology-like thing called the Hoffman Quadrinity Process that is all over the Internet and apparently in several countries.



If the Pope ever did pronounce the five-fold nature of God, I expect the word would continue to be based on the Latin root -nitas, and so following the pattern it would be quintinity.



Me, I'm signing up as an infinitarian. If the godhead has constituent parts, it's some unquantifiable number in one. An infinity.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 17 '11 at 6:16









Jonathan Van Matre

1,070711




1,070711












  • +1. THis is an even better answer.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:29






  • 1




    I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:39






  • 1




    In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 18:58












  • Or maybe quinity?
    – Peter Shor
    Dec 17 '11 at 23:25










  • +1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
    – Kris
    Dec 19 '11 at 6:24


















  • +1. THis is an even better answer.
    – user4951
    Dec 17 '11 at 6:29






  • 1




    I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:39






  • 1




    In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 18:58












  • Or maybe quinity?
    – Peter Shor
    Dec 17 '11 at 23:25










  • +1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
    – Kris
    Dec 19 '11 at 6:24
















+1. THis is an even better answer.
– user4951
Dec 17 '11 at 6:29




+1. THis is an even better answer.
– user4951
Dec 17 '11 at 6:29




1




1




I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
– FumbleFingers
Dec 17 '11 at 17:39




I don't think binity has much currency in religious or any other context. Far more common are dualism, duotheism, bitheism, and ditheism.
– FumbleFingers
Dec 17 '11 at 17:39




1




1




In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
– Jonathan Van Matre
Dec 17 '11 at 18:58






In popular religious discourse it's exceedingly rare, but it's common currency in formal theology. It's of particular relevance in scholarship of the early pre-Nicene Christian church. Many of the early Christian apologists are seen as binitarian monotheists, which is in no way the same thing as ditheism. But it has not been uncommon for those who disagree with the binitarian view to label it dismissively as a ditheistic heresy. So, um...when can we have theologynuts.stackexchange.com?
– Jonathan Van Matre
Dec 17 '11 at 18:58














Or maybe quinity?
– Peter Shor
Dec 17 '11 at 23:25




Or maybe quinity?
– Peter Shor
Dec 17 '11 at 23:25












+1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
– Kris
Dec 19 '11 at 6:24




+1 for quintinity. The OP is not so much about religion as it is about language. Just quintinity should have sufficed, I suppose.
– Kris
Dec 19 '11 at 6:24













8














Duality is 2 in 1,
Trinity is 3 in 1,
Quadrality is 4 in 1



That's as far as I know them.



Primality should work for 1 in 1, at least from the mathematical point of view.






share|improve this answer

















  • 3




    Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
    – Gnawme
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:01






  • 4




    Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
    – alcas
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:17










  • @alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:43










  • I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:53










  • @Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
    – ThePopMachine
    Dec 18 '11 at 14:57


















8














Duality is 2 in 1,
Trinity is 3 in 1,
Quadrality is 4 in 1



That's as far as I know them.



Primality should work for 1 in 1, at least from the mathematical point of view.






share|improve this answer

















  • 3




    Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
    – Gnawme
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:01






  • 4




    Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
    – alcas
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:17










  • @alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:43










  • I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:53










  • @Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
    – ThePopMachine
    Dec 18 '11 at 14:57
















8












8








8






Duality is 2 in 1,
Trinity is 3 in 1,
Quadrality is 4 in 1



That's as far as I know them.



Primality should work for 1 in 1, at least from the mathematical point of view.






share|improve this answer












Duality is 2 in 1,
Trinity is 3 in 1,
Quadrality is 4 in 1



That's as far as I know them.



Primality should work for 1 in 1, at least from the mathematical point of view.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 17 '11 at 4:41









RiMMER

18.9k1375103




18.9k1375103








  • 3




    Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
    – Gnawme
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:01






  • 4




    Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
    – alcas
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:17










  • @alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:43










  • I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:53










  • @Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
    – ThePopMachine
    Dec 18 '11 at 14:57
















  • 3




    Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
    – Gnawme
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:01






  • 4




    Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
    – alcas
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:17










  • @alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
    – Jay
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:43










  • I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
    – Jonathan Van Matre
    Dec 17 '11 at 5:53










  • @Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
    – ThePopMachine
    Dec 18 '11 at 14:57










3




3




Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
– Gnawme
Dec 17 '11 at 5:01




Or unity. That's what the Unitarian Church is about.
– Gnawme
Dec 17 '11 at 5:01




4




4




Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
– alcas
Dec 17 '11 at 5:17




Can duality actually be used that way? In my experience, duality can only mean "a quality of something that is 2 things in one", not the 2 things in one itself; thus, we can say that "Jekyll and Hyde exhibit a duality of personality," but we can't say "Jekyll and Hyde ARE a duality." I think trinity is the only such word that can refer to the "n in one" thing itself. Having said that, though, if the Pope decided that there was a Holy Duality instead of trinity, and this became official doctrine, I'm sure the new usage would catch on :)
– alcas
Dec 17 '11 at 5:17












@alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
– Jay
Dec 17 '11 at 5:43




@alcas: Interesting point, but then we're always shifting parts of speech. Like, "hungry" is an adjective, yet if you say "The hungry of the world ..." people know what you mean.
– Jay
Dec 17 '11 at 5:43












I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
– Jonathan Van Matre
Dec 17 '11 at 5:53




I agree that duality/quadrality/primality are not part of this family. But Gnawme's suggestion of unity is correct - it's theologically significant and from the same root as trinity: unitas, trinitas.
– Jonathan Van Matre
Dec 17 '11 at 5:53












@Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
– ThePopMachine
Dec 18 '11 at 14:57






@Jay: This just came up over here [english.stackexchange.com/questions/51908/… -- see my comment: "The <adjective>...." for "<adjective> people" is an idiom which applies to all adjectives (that can be applied to people) and that usage doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that <adjective> has shifted to be a noun.
– ThePopMachine
Dec 18 '11 at 14:57













2














I take it that this is not an entirely serious question, so here's a not entirely serious answer. A quadripartite deity would be a tetrakism and a quintipartite one would be a pentalogy.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:42












  • @FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
    – Barrie England
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:45










  • Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:53






  • 1




    @FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
    – Jay
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:01






  • 1




    @Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:14
















2














I take it that this is not an entirely serious question, so here's a not entirely serious answer. A quadripartite deity would be a tetrakism and a quintipartite one would be a pentalogy.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:42












  • @FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
    – Barrie England
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:45










  • Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:53






  • 1




    @FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
    – Jay
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:01






  • 1




    @Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:14














2












2








2






I take it that this is not an entirely serious question, so here's a not entirely serious answer. A quadripartite deity would be a tetrakism and a quintipartite one would be a pentalogy.






share|improve this answer














I take it that this is not an entirely serious question, so here's a not entirely serious answer. A quadripartite deity would be a tetrakism and a quintipartite one would be a pentalogy.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 17 '11 at 8:31

























answered Dec 17 '11 at 7:43









Barrie England

128k10202347




128k10202347








  • 1




    I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:42












  • @FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
    – Barrie England
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:45










  • Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:53






  • 1




    @FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
    – Jay
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:01






  • 1




    @Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:14














  • 1




    I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:42












  • @FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
    – Barrie England
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:45










  • Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17 '11 at 17:53






  • 1




    @FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
    – Jay
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:01






  • 1




    @Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 20 '11 at 16:14








1




1




I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
– FumbleFingers
Dec 17 '11 at 17:42






I think by the time we get to someone claiming their god embodies five or more aspects, polytheist probably makes more sense (if indeed any of it ever could).
– FumbleFingers
Dec 17 '11 at 17:42














@FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
– Barrie England
Dec 17 '11 at 17:45




@FumbleFingers: Non-Christians might make the same case against the trinity.
– Barrie England
Dec 17 '11 at 17:45












Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
– FumbleFingers
Dec 17 '11 at 17:53




Atheists might make a similar case against any number of "godheads" greater than zero. But I seem to recall there are [primitive?] languages that don't really have words for any numbers greater than three - the missionaries of this hypothetical "five-way godhead" might find they've got their work cut out there!
– FumbleFingers
Dec 17 '11 at 17:53




1




1




@FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
– Jay
Dec 20 '11 at 16:01




@FumbleFingers: There's a very distinct difference between polytheism and Trinitarianism: polytheism says many gods, Trinitarianism says one God with multiple aspects. Increasing the number of aspects doesn't turn him into multiple gods. That would be like saying that now that XYZ Corporation has four subsidiaries, it is no longer a single tax entity; or now that you have four children, you are no longer a single family. It may seem a subtle distinction if you're an "outsider" who doesn't believe any of it, but believe me, the implications are huge. :-)
– Jay
Dec 20 '11 at 16:01




1




1




@Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
– FumbleFingers
Dec 20 '11 at 16:14




@Jay: It's true I am an "outsider", so I must be careful not to tread too heavily on other people's beliefs. Perhaps I should have said pantheist rather than polytheist - according to my understanding that nets down to the belief that everything is an aspect of the godhead. But it does often seem that's the position of some Christians anyway - Christianity is a broad church, as they say.
– FumbleFingers
Dec 20 '11 at 16:14











-1














My head hurts. I read every world. Wow, are you guys ever INTELLIGENT. I was just looking for "Quadrinity" and found it, and then some. My brain feels full.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago










  • I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago
















-1














My head hurts. I read every world. Wow, are you guys ever INTELLIGENT. I was just looking for "Quadrinity" and found it, and then some. My brain feels full.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago










  • I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago














-1












-1








-1






My head hurts. I read every world. Wow, are you guys ever INTELLIGENT. I was just looking for "Quadrinity" and found it, and then some. My brain feels full.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









My head hurts. I read every world. Wow, are you guys ever INTELLIGENT. I was just looking for "Quadrinity" and found it, and then some. My brain feels full.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 3 hours ago









Ted Scheck

1




1




New contributor




Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Ted Scheck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago










  • I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago


















  • Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago










  • I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
    – Chappo
    3 hours ago
















Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
3 hours ago




Hi Ted, welcome to EL&U. Note, this site is different from others: it's not a forum, so please don't post comments in the Answer Box. Comments are a privilege requiring 50 reputation points, but you can easily earn these points by posting good answers (each upvote earns you 10 pts) or questions (upvotes earn 5 pts). See How to Answer for further guidance, and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
3 hours ago












I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
– Chappo
3 hours ago




I'm flagging this post as Not An Answer.
– Chappo
3 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52014%2fif-trinity-means-3-in-one-whats-the-word-for-one-in-one-2-in-one-4-in-one-5%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Morgemoulin

Image
Morgemoulin — miejscowość i gmina — Państwo   Francja Region Grand Est Departament Moza Okręg Verdun Kod INSEE 55357 Powierzchnia 6,82 km² Populacja  (1990) • liczba ludności 75 • gęstość 11 os./km² Kod pocztowy 55400 Położenie na mapie Francji Morgemoulin 49°14′N   5°35′E / 49,233333   5,583333 Portal Francja Morgemoulin – miejscowość i gmina we Francji, w regionie Grand Est, w departamencie Moza. Według danych na rok 1990 gminę zamieszkiwało 75 osób, a gęstość zaludnienia wynosiła 11 osób/km² (wśród 2335 gmin Lotaryngii Morgemoulin plasuje się na 970. miejscu pod względem liczby ludności, natomiast pod względem powierzchni na miejscu 848.). Bibliografia | Francuski urząd statystyczny ( fr. ) . p   •   d   •   e Gminy okręgu Verdun Abaucourt-Hautecourt • Aincreville • Ambly-sur-Meuse • Amel-sur-l'Étang • Ancemont • Arrancy-sur-Crusne • Aubréville • Autré...
Read more

Scott Moir

Image
Scott Moir Tessa Virtue i Scott Moir w 2016 r. Reprezentacja   Kanada Data i miejsce urodzenia 2 września 1987 London Wzrost 180 cm Konkurencja Pary taneczne Partner sportowy Tessa Virtue Trener Marie-France Dubreuil, Patrice Lauzon, Romain Haguenauer Poprzednio: Marina Zujewa, Oleg Epstein, Igor Szpilband, Johnny Johns, Carol Moir, Paul MacIntosh, Suzanne Killing Klub Montreal International School of Skating Poprzednio: Arctic Edge FSC Ilderton Skating Club Lokalizacja treningowa Montreal Poprzednio: Canton Kitchener Rekordy życiowe ISU przed sezonem 2018/2019 Nota łączna 206,07 Igrzyska Olimpijskie 2018 Taniec krótki 83,67 Igrzyska Olimpijskie 2018 Taniec dowolny 122,40 Igrzyska Olimpijskie 2018 Dorobek medalowy Reprezentacja   Kanada Igrzyska olimpijskie Złoto Vancouver 2010 pary taneczne Złoto Pjongczang 2018 pary taneczne Złoto Pjongczang 2018 drużynowo Srebro S...
Read more

Souastre

Image
Souastre — miejscowość i gmina — Herb Państwo   Francja Region Hauts-de-France Departament Pas-de-Calais Okręg Arras Kod INSEE 62800 Powierzchnia 7,18 km² Populacja  (1990) • liczba ludności 352 • gęstość 49 os./km² Kod pocztowy 62111 Położenie na mapie Francji Souastre 50°09′N   2°34′E / 50,150000   2,566667 Portal Francja Souastre – miejscowość i gmina we Francji, w regionie Hauts-de-France, w departamencie Pas-de-Calais. Według danych na rok 1990 gminę zamieszkiwały 352 osoby, a gęstość zaludnienia wynosiła 49 osób/km² (wśród 1549 gmin regionu Nord-Pas-de-Calais Souastre plasuje się na 887. miejscu pod względem liczby ludności, natomiast pod względem powierzchni na miejscu 507.). Bibliografia | Francuski urząd statystyczny ( fr. ) . p   •   d   •   e Gminy okręgu Arras Ablain-Saint-Nazaire Ablainzevelle Acheville Achicourt Achiet-le-Grand Achiet-le-Pe...
Read more