|
Post by joustos on Oct 1, 2020 22:24:45 GMT
Page 1
On different days, weather and health permitting, I am going to write a tract (small treatise) about the field of study or investigation called "Logology" (= the study of Discourse or Speeches). What I call Philology used to be called, on occasions, Philology, and it was believed that the divine Hermes was the father of Philology or the first philologist (and the father of instrumental music, succeeded in music by the divine Apollo). {Notice how I have been packing information and realize that you are doing philology. This speaking/writing style of mine is not poetic and is not pleasant.} I have never taken courses in linguistics or etymology. So, I will not regurgitate things I learned formally. However, for years I have been doing etymology of words of many languages such as my native language, Anglo-Saxon (Old English), Basque, Eblaite (Canaanitic Syriac), and obscure Etruscan (which I translated -- made clear -- by doing the etymology of many of its words). What is an etymology and how is it done? This is one thing I will discuss and exemplify, so that some readers can become apprendices of the art of etymology and practise it for their native language, if so they wish.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 29, 2021 21:16:59 GMT
Page 49 About the English word, ONE. Mr.Sageofhemaistreet, I will grant you that I am not a sage, but insist on my critical analysis of your derivation of "One". This word, like any other word (in any language) consists of a meaningful SOUND, and any sound cannot be derived from a gesture or any (seen) movement or anything visual in nature; it can derive only from a sound. So, to begin with, the written ONe cannot be said to derive from ONyx. Then, ONE (which sounds like "wON") cannot be from the word Onyx (in the sense of "nail") by the fact that some humans used a nail in a gesture that signified the concept "one". For any valid derivation, a person (an etymologist) must remain witnin the same perceptual domain [auditory, visual, or otherwise]: sound from sound, picture from picture, god from god ( deum de deo, as they say in the Latin Creed, of which I was just reminded, even though gods are not perceptible). Let me repeat my law of derivation: If a word exists by derivation (rather than by either borrowing or by aboriginal formation/coinage), then the source and the derivative must belong to the same perceptual domain. Similarly, for example, a painting of mine cannot be derived from a symphony or from sounds of nature. According to the online Etymological Dictionary, the Modern English word ONE is derived immediately from the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) AN, but unfortunately it does not explain how the spelling "O-N-E" came about, while the sound of "ONE" is no longer "AN" [presumably "Ah-N"]. In my treatment of ONE, I pointed out that the word could be spelled "huan" (or, if you prefer, "hwan), where the H is, as in Latin, a hard aspiration, which is the same as the Greek diacritical mark that look like a tiny C (placed above some letters that are so aspirated). ("Water" could be spelled "huater" or "hwoter.) What I claimed was: Gr. Hen > Lat. Un- as well as Eng. One [actually AN to begin with]. These words are certainly cognate, that is, very similar in sound and very similar in meaning. The contention that the Greek word is the source or basis of all the others requires an act of faith, that the Greek language is older than all the others -- partially evinced by the antiquity of the written Greek language. Conformity Is Deformity. You Are Debating Behind a Stone Wall.The gesture was described by a sound, so your objection doesn't make any sense. So "fingernail" came to be used for the number one, just as "moon" came to be used for month. Your objection is as unrealistic as claiming that a time period cannot be described by a physical object. Spanish "dos" "dedo" are cognate with "toe, to, two, too, and that," with the normal change of d to t. I'll bait your conformist outrage at one more derivation derived from what primitive language-speakers found most striking about an object. "Moon" is the only object that seems to get smaller until it re-appears as full and starts getting smaller again. So "moon" is cognate with "minus." For me, a debate in which I take a part does not have to be before a public; it is always an internal one --in order to reach or to establish truth/correctness for myself. I am sorry I gave the impression that I was outraged; I was simply criticising your claims, just as I have criticised Pokorny, the inventor of " proto- indo -european"[ a PIE in the sky]. To continue: -- It is true that a visual act or event can be described or named by a word (a sound), but it is wrong to say that thereby this word is (etymologically) DERIVED from the visual event. Anyway, ONYX is not a Greek word for ONE. [Try HEN or Arythmos.] Therefore, if Greek is an Indo-European language, "onyx" cannot be the basis/source of the In.Eu. "ONE". -- It is true that at times the MOON appears to get smaller (to DIMISH in size) and this fact made you think of the Latin word MINUS (or more deeply, MINOR), wherefore you thought that Moon and Minus are cognate. No; they are not, since Minus means "less' and is not even the name of an object. You hear a partial assonance or rhyme between Moon and Minus , but not "spoon" since spoons do not appear to diminish in size. At the same time, you did not consider the fact that at times the moon increases in size and that Maius (or Major) is a cognate of Moon. {It is not.} Moon and Month, as well as Gr. M en e and Lat. Mensis are partially cognate, as they share the etymon ["men-], which has the same or near-same sound in both words. [Monday = moon-day, coined in the Latin manner: lunae dies (whence Lunes; Lunedi`; Lundi; etc.) -- your words (.....to, two, .....) are called "homophones", as they are not the same or nearly the same in meaning.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 30, 2021 16:42:00 GMT
I was going TO a store when I met TO friends, Jack and Tom. There was Lillian, TO. The THREE of them tried to climb a THREE but fell on their TOes. DOS started screaming and a THREE dog ran away. Lillian would have liked to run, TO, but she was busy with he DODO and sat under the THREE, waiting for an ambulance. What did I TO to make you climb the THREE? Your cognates, she said.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 30, 2021 17:16:50 GMT
I was going TO a store when I met TO friends, Jack and Tom. There was Lillian, TO. The THREE of them tried to climb a THREE but fell on their TOes. DOS started screaming and a THREE dog ran away. Lillian would have liked to run, TO, but she was busy with her DODO and sat under the THREE, waiting for an ambulance. What did I TO to make you climb the THREE? Your cognates, she said. TO begin with, Pokorny invented " proto- indo- germanic"-- a PIG ln "katuoju" (that is, Kata`+ oikos: Basement, the under-house).
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 4, 2021 18:02:36 GMT
Conformity Is Deformity. You Are Debating Behind a Stone Wall.The gesture was described by a sound, so your objection doesn't make any sense. So "fingernail" came to be used for the number one, just as "moon" came to be used for month. Your objection is as unrealistic as claiming that a time period cannot be described by a physical object. Spanish "dos" "dedo" are cognate with "toe, to, two, too, and that," with the normal change of d to t. I'll bait your conformist outrage at one more derivation derived from what primitive language-speakers found most striking about an object. "Moon" is the only object that seems to get smaller until it re-appears as full and starts getting smaller again. So "moon" is cognate with "minus." For me, a debate in which I take a part does not have to be before a public; it is always an internal one --in order to reach or to establish truth/correctness for myself. I am sorry I gave the impression that I was outraged; I was simply criticising your claims, just as I have criticised Pokorny, the inventor of " proto- indo -european"[ a PIE in the sky]. To continue: -- It is true that a visual act or event can be described or named by a word (a sound), but it is wrong to say that thereby this word is (etymologically) DERIVED from the visual event. Anyway, ONYX is not a Greek word for ONE. [Try HEN or Arythmos.] Therefore, if Greek is an Indo-European language, "onyx" cannot be the basis/source of the In.Eu. "ONE". -- It is true that at times the MOON appears to get smaller (to DIMISH in size) and this fact made you think of the Latin word MINUS (or more deeply, MINOR), wherefore you thought that Moon and Minus are cognate. No; they are not, since Minus means "less' and is not even the name of an object. You hear a partial assonance or rhyme between Moon and Minus , but not "spoon" since spoons do not appear to diminish in size. At the same time, you did not consider the fact that at times the moon increases in size and that Maius (or Major) is a cognate of Moon. {It is not.} Moon and Month, as well as Gr. M en e and Lat. Mensis are partially cognate, as they share the etymon ["men-], which has the same or near-same sound in both words. [Monday = moon-day, coined in the Latin manner: lunae dies (whence Lunes; Lunedi`; Lundi; etc.) -- your words (.....to, two, .....) are called "homophones", as they are not the same or nearly the same in meaning. B Students Jealous of A StudentsYou want to be accepted by the academics, so you cannot stray too far from their reservation. This worship of mind-raping intellectual pedophiles seduces you into purposely distorting my explanations for the prehistoric origin of common words, since it is obvious that I have nothing but contempt for those whose approval you so deeply desire. Originality is the only crime condemned by the self-appointed intellectual judges. The fact is that escapist subjects like etymology are professionalized by inferior minds who are incapable of contributing anything in practical subjects.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 4, 2021 19:54:17 GMT
Page 50. The odd Greek adjective feminine ONE
Like nouns, the Greek definite article (equivalent to Eng. "The") and the Greek "One" as an adjective has different gender forms -- masculine, feminine, and neuter ["neither"], whether one is talking about people, animals, or non-sex endowed things. {Presently I wish to continue with my logology rather than attempting an aetiology [aitio-logia] of linguistic gender or, more interestingly, biological gender.} ONE = Gr. Eis [occasionally Es], Mia, Hen. (The i of Eis has a circumflex accent. So, it's like the long i in "machine".) These three words have nothing in common; hey did not spring from one root. If they did, they might have these forms: Eis, *Eissa, Hen. In fact, the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexikon [Dictionary] mentions that Mia obvioulsy did not arise from the same root as the other two words. So, were on earth did it come from? // Incidentally, the same Eis is used as the pronoun One (as in "One sings when he is happy"). It = sums (some one) in Gothic, probably, says Liddell-Scott, from from the Greek root Ama (= at once; at the same time; Lat. "simul ac"). The corresponding Latin words for "ONE" are Unus, Una, Unum -- whose common root is UN-. Anyway, Unus derives from the Old Latin word Oinos [oin-os}, which is as Greek as the Old Lat. Joustos (later: Justus, whence Eng. "Just"). Oin and Un are variants of the same word, which = An in Anglo-Saxon(Old English) -- later: On or One spelled in a book also as won/uan. Shift N and M: Oinos; *Oime [Doric *Oima]-->'Mia; *Oim -->Hem-->Hen. Or approximately so.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 6, 2021 21:07:59 GMT
Page 51 The above conclusion is not entirely convincing, since it make use of a Latin word (suitable for deriving Unus). Anyway, we have the extant Gr. "oios,-e, -on", which means "Single" [almost = One]. The Bailly Greek-French Dictionary reports the feminine phrase "mian oine " = une seul = only one. [[to reconsider]]
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 15, 2021 19:53:19 GMT
Page 52 Meaning of a word. Someone is speaking in a language I do not understand. For me to say that I understand that language [what he is saying]= I am getting the meaning of his words. Words are sounds which convey meaning. No, no; hold on. Understanding words does not imply that THEY possess meaning , even though we usually speak or think of them as having meaning. A meaning or concept is formed in me upon haring certain sounds and quite spontaneously I attribute it to what I hear. Similarly, upon eating and enjoying ice cream, I attribute sweetness or strawberry flavor to it. (What a human being undergoes he projects to the nature of the "inflictor". So, since the same food can be sweet to healthy Socrates, and bitter to ill Socrates, Plato saw that what we sense/perceive does not provide us with the true knowledge of what is eaten -- with the knowledge of the food as it is IN ITSELF.) Similarly, something can be good for me and bad for you. So, upon comparing notes, we cannot claim that the same thing is intrinsically either good or bad. The same deed -- the amputation of a leg -- is either good or bad for diverse people (with different health conditions); hence the same deed may not be construed as being either morally or legally Right or Wrong. -- Thus began my discourse on axiology [Value Theory].
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 16, 2021 17:11:37 GMT
Page 53 substantive continuation of Page 52
On point that I made above was the fact that we often "reify" what we experience. E.G., if we find ice cream to be sweet, cold, etc., then we attribute sweetness, coldness, etc., to the ice cream -- wherefore we merely perceive what the ice cream IS. Indeed, primitive [uncritical] men believed that the world is in itself the way it is perceived. However, from contradictory experieces Plato inferred that our perceptions do not constitute knowledge of the way things are in themselves.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 16, 2021 20:04:01 GMT
Page 53B substantive continuation of Page 52 On point that I made above was the fact that we often "reify" what we experience. E.G., if we find ice cream to be sweet, cold, etc., then we attribute sweetness, coldness, etc., to the ice cream -- wherefore we merely perceive what the ice cream IS. Indeed, primitive [uncritical] men believed that the world is in itself the way it is perceived. However, from contradictory experieces Plato inferred that our perceptions do not constitute knowledge of the way things are in themselves. Aside from epistemological issues, we can ask, If something is GOOD for person, what is it meant by the word "good"? If BAD, what is exactly meant? "Good for" can mean "beneficial to" (suitable for the health, or the physical well-being of the person, or at leasr preventing pain or preventing death) (leading to the tranquillity/serenity of the person) (pleasing or pleasuring) (engendering a virtuous life) (fulfilling a person's expectations).... Good For, Bad For, and the like, are "relational terms", which may not be replaced by absolutely Good or Bad, and may not be attributed to a subject, for a relation is not a quality or a property of a subject. And of course a relation may not be reified, aside from the fact that any reification is a fallacy: Being somebody's brother cannot even be thought as an entity, as having a substantial existence. Sometimes we do personify Love, Justice, namely abstractions of ways in which we relate to other people, but the personifications are imaginative renditions rather than reifications of actions or attitudes. We use words which, though seemingly absolute, are actual relational. E.G., "This rock is very heavy, but not to you..." I attribute heaviness to the rock, but actually I experience it relatively to my effort to lift or to push it. If you can lift it, I attribute great strength to you (rather than thinking that the rock loses some of its heaviness when you touch it). By the way, scientists are not concerned about heaviness; they speak of the weight of a rock in relation to standard weights in a commercial scale. Scales, thermometers, etc., are comparison-making instruments which provide inter-objective information now that so-called objective information is not obtainable and is actually useless. Because of the gradation of weight, heat, etc., they are generally called measuring instruments. (The science of Nature depends entirely on the invention of such instruments and on the excogitators of methods of measuring. Thank you Galileo, Newton, and all the rest. It all started with Galileo's father, Vincenzo, a musician, who invented a method to measure the tension of the strings of a musical instrument. The length [Pythagoras] and the tension of a string determine/define a tone.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 14, 2021 18:16:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 14, 2021 21:16:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 31, 2021 19:51:45 GMT
Page 55 BOMARZO "Bomarzo" is the name of an Italian town [not a clown] in the province of Viterbo just north of Rome, or in the area which is called Tuscia laziale; that is, Etruscan territory within the region called Latium [ Italian Lazio], the homeland of the Latins or Latin-speaking people who gave rise to Rome/Roma and other cities. Well, Bomarzo is what I would call the city of enigmatic wonders. To begin with, in a wooded are there is what has been called -- actually misnamed -- the Bomarzo PYRAMID, recently cleared from weeds and roots of vegetation: www.ecobnb.com/blog/2016/11/pyramid-of-bomarzo For other articles and views, search: pyramid of bomarzo. What we see is a stone, boulder, or monolith which was carved into a structure of sorts: steps leading to the top or alter to some god -- vaguely reminding of a Mayan step-pyramid. It has been called a megalitic structure, which is false, since a megalithic structure consists of massive boulders (without mortar). Because of archaeological findings in the area, one theory is that it is an Etruscan product, probably from the 7th century B.C. It could be a slightly later Roman product, when Rome occupied the whole of Etruria. Unfortunately, it does not bear either Etruscan or Roman inscriptions. -- to continue.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 31, 2021 21:14:23 GMT
Page 56 During the 16th century, for services to the papal state, the Noble Orsini family was given three fiefs/feuds, one of which was Bomarzo. Vicini Orsini had a mansion built there for mimself, which is still in the modern town. On some deed or document there is the mention "de castro polimartij", which has not been translated and presents great problems: -- de castro is normal Latin, which means "about the [military] encampment, but we have no idea as to whether the camp included the area where the "pyramid" is. -- Polimartij is certainly not a classical Latin word. Its second component, "-martij" refers to the god Mars, probably in the dative case ["marti" in the classical language], meaning "--to Mars"] Apparently in Medieval times, Marti was pronounced as "Marzi" and was correctly written as "Martij". The document may have referred to our pyramid" as an altar dedicated TO MARS. Romans might have made this interpretation since in Rome there was a "campus martius" [Martian Field] which had a temple dedicated to Mars [Marvors in Etruscan]. What is totally strange is the fist component, "Poli-" which usually means "many". However, there could have been the meaning of "Threefold", just as the Greeks had the notion of Hekate as the triple goddess. Mars was known as the inseminator {wherefore for the Romans the agricultural year started in the month of March}, the defender [or god of war or courage], and Ultor [the avanger].// I presume that Orsini, impressed by the enigmatic "pyramid" decided to construct a whole garden or park with enigmatic structures and statues, which is still called "the Sacred Woods" [Sacro Bosco]. Conclusion: -- "Bomarzo" = bo-marzo, < Greek Boe (= helpful, assisting) + Lat. Mars)who gave the Romans victory over the Etruscans in that territory).
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 1, 2021 16:53:29 GMT
Page 57 Annotations to the above "Bomarzo" article: -- Various people have recognized that the Roman word "Mars" is a contraction of the Etruscan name, "Mavors", which is turn is a variation of the Greek "Ares". (Aside from the linguistic issue, scholars have found that the Romans absorbed Greek culture and saw a substantive correspondence between the highly described Greek gods and their own gods or numina [spirits]. The adjective of Mars is "Martius" [Martian], however I just noticed in the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon that the adjective of Ares is Areios ["devoted to Ares"], which corresponds to the Roman Mavortius; that is,the Romans used also the Etruscan name of the god to make an adjective. [So, Mavortius = Martius, or Marzio in the Italian fashion.][Martial, as in "martial law" is from Lat. Martialis, another adjective: "pertaining to, or according to, Mars.] -- In Athens there used to be a place called Areios Pagos,namely a wooded hill opposite to one side of the Parthenon, "The Hill Devoted to Ares". This place was also used to hold court for murders or other major crimes. In Rome, the court was held in the temple of Jupiter (not associated with Mars). Therefore I think that their notion of "Mars Ultor (the avanger)" was acquired from the Greek culture...when Jupiter was identified with Zeus, and Mars with Ares. [The pyramid area of Bomarzo may have been an Etruscan Areios Pagos or Bosco Marzio.]
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 18, 2021 11:07:00 GMT
Amazing research. Unfortunately I haven't read everything, but from a first glance the work impresses its details and step by step methodologically accuracy. The linguists are tough guys with no doubt.
What about the sense (German: Sinn)? Is it possible to find some equivalent to it? I mean the next one: a) two words share the same sense; b) two phrases have the same sense; c) for two sentences the sense is coincide?
Unlike the meaning, which is for me mote formally, i.e. one linguistic element shares with the other linguistic element are tied or closed (logically) with another one element. Generally, there are such triplets in a language (mainly, formal ones, but not necessary) which have a kind of relationship I've mentioned above.
By G. Frege the sense is something really close to so understanding so thinking. Let me introduce an example (can't say it's a good one): for Parmenides there are the being and the existence. If the latter is what can be felt or perceived by feelings, the former is what can be grasped only by our rational ability, or by our mind.in other words, there's no access to the being except for trying to get in using mind skills.
P.S. Apologizes for violating the main theme, or for flood.
|
|