Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabetical - Tradução em português

Divers certainly stems from diversion/diverse which perhaps was used here in the sense of "divergent"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diverse?s=t

==============================================
It is hinted by the "behaviour" of the man, as described in the following passages:


"As it happens, Cawdrey was a man, as far as we know, not given to evasive behaviour, but to plain speaking, a man in trouble with the authorities. He suffered what was for him the tyranny of Elizabeth's established Church (for 'tyrannize' he has in his dictionary 'use crueltie'), he was a Puritan Nonconformist priest who was known for 'speaking divers words in the pulpit, tending to the depraving of the Book of Common Prayer', and 'not conforming himself in the celebration of the divine service and administration of the Sacraments, but refusing to do so' (The First English Dictionary) (for 'conform' Cawdrey has 'to make like unto, to consent'). We might now think it entirely appropriate that a future lexicographer would be 'speaking divers words in the pulpit' before losing his living as a priest


(Não devemos agora pensar inteiramente apropriado que um futuro lexicógrafo estaria falando palavras "divergentes (do pensamento corrente- isto é, ser conformista com o Pensamento Vitoriano/Elizabetano" no púlpito antes de perder seu meio de vida/meio de sustento/ganha-pão como sacerdote/teólogo.)

"Divers" então poderia ser entendido como "divergente/imcompatível" (com a idéia de estar na Igreja Estabelecida, isto é, "palavras contraditórias")

Obrigado pela ajuda, "divergentes" se encaixou muito bem no contexto citado. Entretanto não entendi direito a tradução da parte anterior dessa mesma frase, especificamente:

We might now think it entirely appropriate

para

Não devemos agora pensar inteiramente apropriado

A Ideia do negativo veio de qual expressão?

Obrigado mais uma vez

Acenes

Problem is, you are now reading it out of the whole context.
After my following explanation, just take a look at

http://www.amazon.com/Missing-Out-Prais ... 0374281114


The pragmatist would say that the art of life is in rendering incompatible wants compatible; redescribing them such that they are no longer mutually exclusive

Both these positions, we can see, are, whatever else they are, different solutions to the same problem of frustration; to choose one thing may involve frustrating ourselves of something else. So a lot depends on whether we can bear frustration and whether we want to. If we were creatures less convinced and convincing about our so-called needs we would suffer in quite different ways. Tragedies begin with a person in an emerging state of frustration, beginning to feel the need of something; and at the beginning, for the protagonists, they are not yet tragedies.

======================
That is, would a lexicographer-wannabe to use diver words in the pulpit? wouldn´t be more appropriate to him be a conformist and not suffer the pain of being singled out and have trouble with the authorities and his own audience?
At the time it was such an scandal, but now we might think it entirelly appropriate. He would be a lexicographer, after at all.

Notice that a lexicographer wasn´t tought as a means of life, so one would think innapropriate of the man to say what he said and do what he did.

========