yes that is what it is thought to be conveying. But .....
regere => rect => meaning right/ straight/ as in con-rect. rigo would suffice to convey the idea.
Dis-rect means: not straight in the sense of bending. => to solve <- dis-solve i.e opposites
You can see the same happening in dis-strict, where strict is based on stringere, like pearls on a string, but to dis-strict is the opposite, separating one from the other.
di-rect = 2 rect. As in di-sect, separating one from the other, creating 2 elements, here we also see the di-vision: 2 straights, 2 rights.
In other words what is said and what is meant are two matters, and not by necessity the same or even overlapping matters. Latin is very nice to hide matters in plain sight.
rigo or dirigo offer the means to two distinct meanings. One is clear. the other is ambiguious ... and leave you, while thinking you know what he means, wrong footed.
yes that is what it is thought to be conveying. But .....
regere => rect => meaning right/ straight/ as in con-rect. rigo would suffice to convey the idea.
Dis-rect means: not straight in the sense of bending. => to solve <- dis-solve i.e opposites
You can see the same happening in dis-strict, where strict is based on stringere, like pearls on a string, but to dis-strict is the opposite, separating one from the other.
di-rect = 2 rect. As in di-sect, separating one from the other, creating 2 elements, here we also see the di-vision: 2 straights, 2 rights.
In other words what is said and what is meant are two matters, and not by necessity the same or even overlapping matters. Latin is very nice to hide matters in plain sight.
Well dirigo still has meaning, but now he is subverting it.
That is the whole point ...
rigo or dirigo offer the means to two distinct meanings. One is clear. the other is ambiguious ... and leave you, while thinking you know what he means, wrong footed.