Querent, Subject, Quesited. When questions confuse....

Possible problem: When a card or spread-postion(s) represent the Enquirer, and the query/question does'nt directly apply to the Querent.


QUERENT:
An Enquirer, or a Complainant (old English Law). In both cases = a person. A person who Enquires (or legally has a Complaint.).

The use of this word is now mostly used in divination methods to represent the 'enquirer'. The actual person who makes the enquiry.

However it may not be the 'correct' word to describe the Subject of the divination, which depends solely on the nature and context of the query.

Therefore, should the diviner make adjustments to meet the necessities of the question, assess whether it relates directly to the Querent, or to a Subject?
In both cases it is accepted that the 'powers-that-be' will manipulate or influence the divinatory tool(s) according to how the question is asked. (or understood!)


EXAMPLES #1:

Question A: (Subject)
"What do I need to know about the relationship between A and B.?" (This is an enquiry about a Subject = a Relationship where the Querent is neither A nor B.)

Question B: (Querent)
"How will the relationship between A and B affect me?" (This is an enquiry that directly relates to the Querent = the enquirer.)


In Question A, the divination just might be zilch - zero. This could be due to the moral or ethical issues of the diviner, or 'the-powers-that-be'.

In Question B, the divination should be quite straightforward. Ultimately it can only basically convey one of three things to the Querent; Generally positive - Generally of no import - Generally negative. (All is relative.....)


EXAMPLES #2:

Question C: (Subject?)
"How will my daughter get on at her new school?" (This is an enquiry about the Daughter - should'nt she be the 'substitute' querent, Subject of the query. And the new School be the Quesited (the quested after) ) ?

Question D: (Subject?)
"I've been advised to give my house-key to some workmen while I'm on holiday. What will happen if I do?" (This is an enquiry about a Subject = the querents home & contents.

Alternatively, should the diviner re-phrase this question to something like, "Is this good advice for the safety & benifit of the querents house?".?
If so, then the advice becomes the Subject, and the house/home becomes the Quesited.
------

For purely intuitive readers none of this would really matter, any divinatory method mainly serves to give them focus. But for those who prefer some measure of structure or system, this could be a niggly point. I've tried to clarify it here, is there general agreement, disagreement, or other views? Do you ever re-phrase the question(s) to clarify?

Bee

I honestly did not understand most of what you said. It was quite complex, but as for the last question.... Yes I often rephrase a querent's question.

The way a question is phrased is important to the development of the answer. If I think a question is not asked in the best way, I will ask the querent if it is ok if I change it to (I then tell the the new question). And then I tell them the reason why I feel it would be in their best interest to make the adjustment. No one has ever said no to me yet, although they sometimes change the question to a completely different one.

Hope that info helps,

Babs

SunChariot: I honestly did not understand most of what you said. It was quite complex, but as for the last question.... Yes I often rephrase a querent's question.

Click to expand...

Oh dear! I was trying to clarify how best I/we might relate a question to the questioner &/or spread ! I failed....

The way a question is phrased is important to the development of the answer. If I think a question is not asked in the best way, I will ask the querent if it is ok if I change it to (I then tell the the new question). And then I tell them the reason why I feel it would be in their best interest to make the adjustment. No one has ever said no to me yet, although they sometimes change the question to a completely different one.
Hope that info helps,
Babs

Click to expand...

(My bold). Yes, that's what I was trying to pinpoint Gotta suit the question to the spread - or be prepared to change the spread to suit the question.

"...although they sometimes change the question to a completely different one.".

Thank you for responding SunChariot. Yes, you have helped.

Bee

In terms of how I read, if I include a 'querent' position, it's the one asking the question, no matter what the question is. If a card is needed to clarify the subject, there will be a separate one for that.

Bernice said:

Yes, that's what I was trying to pinpoint Gotta suit the question to the spread - or be prepared to change the spread to suit the question.

"...although they sometimes change the question to a completely different one.".

Thank you for responding SunChariot. Yes, you have helped.

Bee

Click to expand...

Actually I don't use spreads. At least very very rarely. Maybe I will use one once a year or so when I feel in the mood for something different, but it is definitely not the norm for me to use them.

Although yes, if you are going to use a spread, once you know what the question is then you have to choose (or invent) a spread that is appropriate to it and capable of giving you a good answer to that question.

And glad I was able to help.

Babs

Reply Part 1

Bernice,

I have to admit I was lost the first time I read this yesterday, but upon rereading it this morning, I see I missed a key point the first time around.

Bernice said:

Possible problem: When a card or spread-postion(s) represent the Enquirer, and the query/question does'nt directly apply to the Querent.

Click to expand...

There's a position in the spread labeled Querent/Enquirer/etc. What you wrote below makes more sense now.

Bernice said:

QUERENT:
An Enquirer, or a Complainant (old English Law). In both cases = a person. A person who Enquires (or legally has a Complaint.).

The use of this word is now mostly used in divination methods to represent the 'enquirer'. The actual person who makes the enquiry.

However it may not be the 'correct' word to describe the Subject of the divination, which depends solely on the nature and context of the query.

Therefore, should the diviner make adjustments to meet the necessities of the question, assess whether it relates directly to the Querent, or to a Subject?

Click to expand...

I agree that while the Querent is the one who asks the question, the Querent isn't always the Subject of the reading. I haven't made up my mind yet on whether that makes a difference. Hopefully by the time I get to the end of this reply, I'll have a better idea of where I stand on the matter....

Bernice said:

Question A: (Subject)
"What do I need to know about the relationship between A and B.?" (This is an enquiry about a Subject = a Relationship where the Querent is neither A nor B.)

Click to expand...

A relationship that the Querent isn't directly involved in is the subject of the reading. I guess this fact could confuse a Querent position in a spread because such a position could just as easily provide information about the person asking the question as about the relationship in question. So the reader would need to decide for himself/herself which focus the position should have before the reading begins.

Bernice said:

Question B: (Querent)
"How will the relationship between A and B affect me?" (This is an enquiry that directly relates to the Querent = the enquirer.)

Click to expand...

(As an aside, can I say how much I how nitpicky you're being with the language? While you speak the Queen's version and I speak the American derivative, people marvel at my command of the (American) English language. I tell them that I had two Queens and a Diva as teachers in High School and while that was almost 30 years ago, they scarred me for life. )

Your distinction between the two examples seems to hinge more on the phrases "What...know" and "How...affect" than on the structure of the sentences. If the second sentence is rewritten as "What effect will the relationship between A and B have on me?", does the distinction disappear? Hmmm....

In both forms of the question, I think the relationship is the subject. Also, between the way Question A is written and the way you're interpreting the subject in Question B, it kind of assumes that knowledge of something (the focus of Question A) doesn't have an effect on the person asking the question. I disagree with that.

Bernice said:

In Question A, the divination just might be zilch - zero. This could be due to the moral or ethical issues of the diviner, or 'the-powers-that-be'.

Click to expand...

For me you are correct because I wouldn't do a reading on Question A as it's currently written.

Bernice said:

In Question B, the divination should be quite straightforward. Ultimately it can only basically convey one of three things to the Querent; Generally positive - Generally of no import - Generally negative. (All is relative.....)

Click to expand...

No arguments there.

I'm having weird issues with my full reply resulting in a blank post, so I will end here and post part 2 separately.

Rodney

Reply Part 2

Bernice said:

Question C: (Subject?)
"How will my daughter get on at her new school?" (This is an enquiry about the Daughter - should'nt she be the 'substitute' querent, Subject of the query. And the new School be the Quesited (the quested after) ) ?

Click to expand...

Although the reasoning should be the same as with Question A, I think it's more evident that the Querent position in the spread should refer to the Daughter and not to the parent asking the question. The only reason I can give is that the subject is a person (daughter) instead of a thing (relationship). I don't know why that makes a difference to me, but it does.

Bernice said:

Question D: (Subject?)
"I've been advised to give my house-key to some workmen while I'm on holiday. What will happen if I do?" (This is an enquiry about a Subject = the querents home & contents.

Alternatively, should the diviner re-phrase this question to something like, "Is this good advice for the safety & benifit of the querents house?".?
If so, then the advice becomes the Subject, and the house/home becomes the Quesited.

Click to expand...

I don't like reading on Yes/No questions, so I wouldn't use the second version of the question. Focusing on the first version of the question, I'd have to be consistent and say that the Querent position could refer to either the homeowner as the person asking the question or the home and its contents as the subject of the question. The reader would need to choose which way they'd interpret that position before the reading started. (Actually, the reader could choose to interpret that position from both perspectives.)

So if I've correctly understood what you're asking, I think my position is now that the reader could make the determination beforehand whether to interpret the Querent position as the person asking the question or as the subject of the question OR the reader could interpret the position from both perspectives to provide more in-depth analysis of the answer.

Rodney

Rodney: So if I've correctly understood what you're asking, I think my position is now that the reader could make the determination beforehand whether to interpret the Querent position as the person asking the question or as the subject of the question OR the reader could interpret the position from both perspectives to provide more in-depth analysis of the answer.

Click to expand...

Thank you Rodney for giving my post more than a cursory glance
As you've said it depends on how the 'reader' chooses to interpret the question, and this is where the 'niggle' comes.
IF the Querent is the enquirer - the actual person making the query - which of course it is - then if their question doesn't pertain directly to themselves , then the querent-card or querent-position for the enquirer CANNOT be them can it?

It seems so obvious to me.....

Explanation: There's a spread that a few of us trying out whereby a specific card & spread postion is named as Querent.

This is causing some difficulty which I believe is simply due to quibbling over the word Querent. In this post I was attempting to find some alternate word, i.e. Subject. But even this word falls down in cases where a 'substitute-querent' needs to be used to address the question.
Perhaps the word 'Focus' might be a solution ?


Sorry if I'm coming across as being 'picky' language-wise.
It ain't what you say, it's the way you say it, and this is probably the crux of the matter. Some questions are about 'some-thing', or 'someone else' which have no apparent reference to the actual querent. I do so wish people would say exactly what they mean (or want to know) !

Your idea of interpreting from both perspectives is what prompted me to make this post. Been tried and it 'aint working! We get two different answers which cannot be reconciled/blended..... and the querent-postion is the crux of it.

I was hoping other people would post their way of dealing with it. Thank you SunChariot and Le Fey
And of course, Rodney

Bee

P.S. Seems to be something wrong with Bold, Italics etc.

Bernice said:

IF the Querent is the enquirer - the actual person making the query - which of course it is - then if their question doesn't pertain directly to themselves , then the querent-card or querent-position for the enquirer CANNOT be them can it?

Click to expand...

That's why I said *if* I use it - when deciding what positions/question elements to include in a spread, sometimes there isn't a lot of need for a Querent position.

But sometimes.. even when the question is outward focused, looking at the querent can still be useful, to help get insight on where the questioner is coming from...what's going on with them that connects them to the question they're asking. If that's relevent, a querent position - about the enquirer - might still have a purpose even if the question (apparently) has little to do with them.

If there really really is no connection, I'd probably wonder why they were asking, but that's just me!

(Oh... and pre-fab spreads - if they have positions that don't work for the situation at hand, switch 'em up, toss out what doesn't work, add in what you need. It's your reading and there are no spread police making sure you do it the way someone else thought up as a suggestion!)

le fey said:

That's why I said *if* I use it - when deciding what positions/question elements to include in a spread, sometimes there isn't a lot of need for a Querent position.

But sometimes.. even when the question is outward focused, looking at the querent can still be useful, to help get insight on where the questioner is coming from...what's going on with them that connects them to the question they're asking. If that's relevent, a querent position - about the enquirer - might still have a purpose even if the question (apparently) has little to do with them.

If there really really is no connection, I'd probably wonder why they were asking, but that's just me!

(Oh... and pre-fab spreads - if they have positions that don't work for the situation at hand, switch 'em up, toss out what doesn't work, add in what you need. It's your reading and there are no spread police making sure you do it the way someone else thought up as a suggestion!)

Click to expand...

I have the same thoughts as you Le Fey!

I'm not a 'hard & fast' spread person, but we're testing out an innovative flexible spread... I like the 'flexible' aspect ... and this querent-thing is proving something of a bugbear for some people. I think a Name-Change might solve the matter....

Bee