From Melville’s Allusions to Religion: A Comprehensive Index and Glossary:

The two orchard thieves – Adam and Eve

– Adam and Eve Theorized by Benjamin Plotnick: Adam and Eve Ordnance Theories: Between Adam and Eve Ordnance Theories in Genesis: Suggest your own interpretation?

The usage if you chance to is at the very least “dated” – bordering on “archaic” imho ^1. We’d nearly always use happen today…

. The word chance is a noun, not a verb. Consider this chart including auxiliary should, with exactly the same meaning…That’s to say

to chance to = to happen to do X (in contexts where “doing X” is thought to be an unlikely future action, but it might happen / come to pass ). On the other hand, if you chance to visit Tainan, your name will be written as if it is the experience of one of you at once, with the added implication that the speaker likely doesn’t think it’s very likely that you will in fact visit (and generally with the additional implication that it would be fortuitous if you did in fact visit).

As the “base” noun is Tainan, modified by the relative clause home to Tu Hsiao Yuel, within which which is effectively optional.

^If something is an archaic thing, why is it so strong around there? What’s your basic point still stands – it might be worth (advanced) learners being aware that the usage does still occur “naturally” with some native speakers, but it’s not really something you’d normally want to incorporate into your own speech patterns as a non-native speaker.

The usage if you chance to is at the very least “dated” – bordering on “archaic” imho ^1. We’d nearly always use happen today…

. The word chance is a noun, not a verb. Consider this chart including auxiliary should, with exactly the same meaning…That’s to say

to chance to = to happen to do X (in contexts where “doing X” is thought to be an unlikely future action, but it might happen / come to pass ). On the other hand, if you chance to visit Tainan, your name will be written as if it is the experience of one of you at once, with the added implication that the speaker likely doesn’t think it’s very likely that you will in fact visit (and generally with the additional implication that it would be fortuitous if you did in fact visit).

As the “base” noun is Tainan, modified by the relative clause home to Tu Hsiao Yuel, within which which is effectively optional.

^If something is an archaic thing, why is it so strong around there? What’s your basic point still stands – it might be worth (advanced) learners being aware that the usage does still occur “naturally” with some native speakers, but it’s not really something you’d normally want to incorporate into your own speech patterns as a non-native speaker.

The usage if you chance to is at the very least “dated” – bordering on “archaic” imho ^1. We’d nearly always use happen today…

. The word chance is a noun, not a verb. Consider this chart including auxiliary should, with exactly the same meaning…That’s to say

to chance to = to happen to do X (in contexts where “doing X” is thought to be an unlikely future action, but it might happen / come to pass ). On the other hand, if you chance to visit Tainan, your name will be written as if it is the experience of one of you at once, with the added implication that the speaker likely doesn’t think it’s very likely that you will in fact visit (and generally with the additional implication that it would be fortuitous if you did in fact visit).

As the “base” noun is Tainan, modified by the relative clause home to Tu Hsiao Yuel, within which which is effectively optional.

^If something is an archaic thing, why is it so strong around there? What’s your basic point still stands – it might be worth (advanced) learners being aware that the usage does still occur “naturally” with some native speakers, but it’s not really something you’d normally want to incorporate into your own speech patterns as a non-native speaker.

The usage if you chance to is at the very least “dated” – bordering on “archaic” imho ^1. We’d nearly always use happen today…

. The word chance is a noun, not a verb. Consider this chart including auxiliary should, with exactly the same meaning…That’s to say

to chance to = to happen to do X (in contexts where “doing X” is thought to be an unlikely future action, but it might happen / come to pass ). On the other hand, if you chance to visit Tainan, your name will be written as if it is the experience of one of you at once, with the added implication that the speaker likely doesn’t think it’s very likely that you will in fact visit (and generally with the additional implication that it would be fortuitous if you did in fact visit).

As the “base” noun is Tainan, modified by the relative clause home to Tu Hsiao Yuel, within which which is effectively optional.

^If something is an archaic thing, why is it so strong around there? What’s your basic point still stands – it might be worth (advanced) learners being aware that the usage does still occur “naturally” with some native speakers, but it’s not really something you’d normally want to incorporate into your own speech patterns as a non-native speaker.

On the other hand, since OP wants a word evocative of running water it’s worth noting 24,900

instances in Blogging Brooklyn and OP could go with murmur, but I and most other Anglophones

tend to use buzz…. On the other
hand, since OP wants a

word evocative of running water. 12,000 instances babbling brook 47,000 instances in Google Books babble of conversation 240,900 instances. Whether he was referring to this word or

How does it solve a historical context that’s not represented either as an historical or a revisionist perspective?

In OP’s context, all that’s happened is the church elaborated, the story. As for what they’ve dressed up, they’ve expanded it etc. Was Aquinas saint?

Why would you say Christiantity’s miracles are mythologising?

How does it solve a historical context that’s not represented either as an historical or a revisionist perspective?

In OP’s context, all that’s happened is the church elaborated, the story. As for what they’ve dressed up, they’ve expanded it etc. Was Aquinas saint?

Why would you say Christiantity’s miracles are mythologising?

Most people would probably say accidentally, but personally I’d be likely to use inadvertantly. In most similar contexts

In this exact context, the intention is to place the “blame” for the error on the design of the webapp, rather than the user’s carelessness. Personally I feel that inadvertantly doesn’t do that quite so well as erroneously, by mistake, or mistakenly, all the of which seem to me more capable of implying that the user was “led astray” rather than inherently incompetent.

If the “cancel” button is misleadingly labelled and disabling the cttl option, the user instantly realises he has selected the wrong thing as soon as he clicks, it

might be reasonable to say unwittingly.

Most people would probably say accidentally, but personally I’d be likely to use inadvertantly. In most similar contexts

In this exact context, the intention is to place the “blame” for the error on the design of the webapp, rather than the user’s carelessness. Personally I feel that inadvertantly doesn’t do that quite so well as erroneously, by mistake, or mistakenly, all the of which seem to me more capable of implying that the user was “led astray” rather than inherently incompetent.

If the “cancel” button is misleadingly labelled and disabling the cttl option, the user instantly realises he has selected the wrong thing as soon as he clicks, it

might be reasonable to say unwittingly.