Noun+Adjective in Lenormand Line of Five

Hello, I have a question for those who read Lenormand in a "traditional" way. It comes up for me when I am doing a line of three or five or even in a 3x3--any time there is a focus card in the center of a line. If you read left to right, it seems like the first card in the line would be the "noun" and moving right there are one or more adjectives following. But if the card in the center of the line is the focus, isn't this the "noun"? So the cards to the left would also be "adjectives"?

I know in a line you can pair mirroring cards and then the noun-adjective idea is straightforward. It's just how to apply it to the central focus card itself that's confusing. So far I've read the cards on the left more as a separate commentary on the past, a lead-in to the reading so to speak. (That does seem to work pretty well for me.) But a comment I read in Chanah's blog about Book-Man being different from Man-Book reminded me that I really don't know how a traditional reader uses the noun+adjective idea (if at all) with a central card.

I know people read Lenormand in a lot of different ways. I'm just looking for clarification on what the traditional way actually is in this case.

I'd appreciate any clarification anyone can give. Thanks a lot!

Hi! I use to read it this way:

Let´s imagine a line of five: 1 - 2- 3- 4- 5

The central card (3) works like a "theme" to your answer. If you´re looking for a yes or no, for example, it is the card that will answer that. If you´re looking for some explanation about a situation, this card will give the context to your answer, like a " central " noun.


So you look to 4 and it will describe the 3, as an adjective, and the 2 will also give you details, but 2 works combining with 1, where 2 is describing 1. 5 is describing 4.
I know it seems complicated, so I´ll try to make an example (very basic, simple, ok)

The Querent ask for the cards how it will be a negotiation with a client, he wants to sign a contract with the client, who is a big company.

1 Cavalier, 19 Tower, 25 Ring, 27 Letter, 21 Mountain

The central card is the Ring, so we can see it like a contract, because what describes it, as an adjective, is the letter. Mountain is some help on doing this, because Querent´s card is not here, so Mountain is 'away' from he, what means "a powerful friend", in this case, a help. (looking the mirror, Cavalier works as its adjective, and we can find he will have some help/influence from a man. What describes that man is the tower, so it is a man with a high position).
Tower also gives some description to the central card, so the ring/letter contract will be for a long time, a long term contract.

So we can say he will sign the contract, for a long term partnership, and he will have some help, the influence of a man with a high position, probably from the company with who he is negotiating that contract.

I use to mirror them, as you can see, so the left cards are also adjectives to the right cards (from the central one).

(I´m not sure if my english is understandable)

surpeti said:

Hello, I have a question for those who read Lenormand in a "traditional" way. It comes up for me when I am doing a line of three or five or even in a 3x3--any time there is a focus card in the center of a line. If you read left to right, it seems like the first card in the line would be the "noun" and moving right there are one or more adjectives following. But if the card in the center of the line is the focus, isn't this the "noun"? So the cards to the left would also be "adjectives"?

Click to expand...

There is no "supposed to" with short spreads because the only "traditional" spread is the Grand Tableau and all the cards are read in relation to the querent's significator. Therefore, you can read a line-spread in any way you choose. Who's to say who made it up and what their intention was?

As I imagine it, short line-readings and the Square of Nine were first used, perhaps, as training wheels for understanding how to combine and read cards in a GT. That's how I use them. For me, short spreads are always a segment of a Grand Tableau. For instance, the first three cards in a GT are often read on their own to express a theme for the overall GT. The first card is also significant when reading the four corners. This is appropriate as it is the House of Rider: a message, i.e., "this message is about _____ (card)." You gradually learn to expand or develop that first card/impulse/message through the whole first row (whether 8 or 9 cards). It is the starting point. I'm also always aware that a short spread is only a tiny piece of the whole picture.

For this reason I emphasize the first card in a line as what issue (subject) gets the whole thing moving. The middle card can be a high-point or even a climax, with the subsequent cards winding up into a "most-likely" conclusion. In a 3-card layout this hardly matters as the simple combinations dominate, but it starts becoming more important with 5 or more cards.

In actuality, in a Grand Tableau, any card can be viewed as a subject. It is these overlapping pools of influence (a subject and all its adjacent cards) that make up the dynamics of the spread. There's even a method of reading the Grand Tableau, described by Erna Droesbeke, that looks at each of the 36 cards as "subject."

Artkka said:

(I´m not sure if my english is understandable)

Click to expand...

Welcome, Artkka. Your English is very understandable. It's a nice example of reading with a central subject, but almost too easy in that the question was about a contract and Ring was in the center. What if it was the same question but the cards were ordered like this:

Ring - Letter - Mountain - Cavalier - Tower

???

I'd really like to see how the order would change this reading as I very much appreciated your explanation of your original example. I love seeing how people from different backgrounds approach Lenormand.

Thank you both for the feedback. Artkka, welcome! Your explanation was very helpful. I'm going to have to reread it a few times to really get what you are doing, but that's just because I think slowly--your English is great. It sounds like in mirroring, you actually reverse the noun+adjective order since the left card of the mirror pair is supporting the right card.

Now that I am writing this, I also realize that the typical noun+adjective order is different in different languages--so double thanks for your ability to communicate this to me.

Teheuti, you are right about the Grand Tableau being the only real tradition, but even those who are interested in tradition seem to use shorter spreads. I guess even in reading the first three cards of a GT you would have to decide if the 1st and 3rd were "flanking" the 2nd, versus reading them left to right where the 1st card is the "noun." Sounds like you are advising the latter approach. When you say the first card gets things moving, middle is the high point, and last is the conclusion, it reminds me of the past-present-future way of reading a line. (There was an interesting post somewhere recently about how a cause could be in the future and the effect in the past, so maybe it isn't exactly a timeline--just a progression from cause to effect.) I also understood you to say that in a 3x3 with the central card being the subject, all the others are its "adjectives" in relation to it, as well as being combinations with each other.

You're also right about there being no "shoulds" but I wanted to clarify how a tradition-oriented reader might combine cards in a line, and you've given me some good input.

Lots of good ideas here. Thanks again to both of you!

Yes, I read left-to-right and I generally see the first card in a line-reading as the main noun/subject (not exactly a focus card). In a Square of Nine, the center card definitely acts as both the subject and the focus.

The important thing, if you want accuracy, is to be consistent. Flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants readings can be very feel-good, but you won't get the same sometimes-brutal honesty that you get by having a well-tested set of rules and following them.

One of the differences between Lenormand and Tarot, for me, is that I can make up all kinds of spreads for Tarot, but with Lenormand I always go back to the basic principles of the Grand Tableau - even when reading short line-spreads. How do you read a row when reading the GT? Does that approach apply to short line-spreads or not?

I've also gone back to 19th century examples of reading lines in cartomancy. One example is "horseshoe spreads," which are really lines, but they make the mirroring more obvious. They are usually read as a sequence (sometimes via a counting technique rather than card-by-card) and end with mirroring, such that the center card becomes the outcome or result.

Reading the middle card as the noun/subject seems to be more of a modern approach that fits with the 4x9 GT layout, which doesn't make it any less viable as long as one is consistent.

Teheuti said:

Yes, I read left-to-right and I generally see the first card in a line-reading as the main noun/subject (not exactly a focus card). In a Square of Nine, the center card definitely acts as both the subject and the focus.

The important thing, if you want accuracy, is to be consistent. Flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants readings can be very feel-good, but you won't get the same sometimes-brutal honesty that you get by having a well-tested set of rules and following them.

One of the differences between Lenormand and Tarot, for me, is that I can make up all kinds of spreads for Tarot, but with Lenormand I always go back to the basic principles of the Grand Tableau - even when reading short line-spreads. How do you read a row when reading the GT? Does that approach apply to short line-spreads or not?

I've also gone back to 19th century examples of reading lines in cartomancy. One example is "horseshoe spreads," which are really lines, but they make the mirroring more obvious. They are usually read as a sequence (sometimes via a counting technique rather than card-by-card) and end with mirroring, such that the center card becomes the outcome or result.

Reading the middle card as the noun/subject seems to be more of a modern approach that fits with the 4x9 GT layout, which doesn't make it any less viable as long as one is consistent.

Click to expand...

This is really interesting. I've heard all along to stick to one set of rules when reading Lenormand traditionally, but as a newbie it's sometimes not clear that two "rules" are actually incompatible. My question seemed kind of elementary to me--I thought both "rules" were part of some bigger whole I just wasn't getting. Often when people post interpretations, they give the holistic message without explicitly showing their thought process (so Artkka's detailed response was really appreciated). So yes, I'll just have to make a conscious choice to use one or the other. That makes things a lot simpler!

Not sure if your question about lines the Grand Tableau was rhetorical, but I'm just now starting to try the Grand Tableau. So I guess I don't have "a way" of reading a line yet--but I will think more about how to be consistent (or deliberately not consistent) when approaching small and big spreads.

I've become interested in reading playing cards lately, because of the insets on my Lenormand cards. They in turn reminded me that a long-deceased relative of mine read playing cards, intriguing me more. So if you wanted to start a thread about the horseshoe spread and/or other cartomancy lines, that would be great! Thanks for the response, Teheuti.

surpeti said:

I've become interested in reading playing cards lately, because of the insets on my Lenormand cards.

Click to expand...

Don't try using French or English playing card meanings with the Lenormand cards. They were designed to correspond with an old method of German cartomancy with suits of Hearts, Leaves (Spades), Bells (Diamonds), and Acorns (Clubs). See the Game of Hope cards. There's some discussion of this topic already here but the best explanation is at: http://lenormanddictionary.blogspot.com/p/the-fox-and-snake.html

Card Inset Meanings

Teheuti said:

Don't try using French or English playing card meanings with the Lenormand cards. They were designed to correspond with an old method of German cartomancy with suits of Hearts, Leaves (Spades), Bells (Diamonds), and Acorns (Clubs). See the Game of Hope cards. There's some discussion of this topic already here but the best explanation is at: http://lenormanddictionary.blogspot.com/p/the-fox-and-snake.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip!

I should modify my comment. You can use any system you like with the playing cards if you choose to have them give you another layer of information. However, the French and English systems will not correspond with the Lenormand meanings. For some, that's not a problem. It's like getting two readings in one. (For me this would be extremely confusing.)