|
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 Nov 24, 2020 16:26:32 GMT
Page 30 important contnuaation of Page 29 Yes, the last paragraph of Page 29 says too many things in a confusing way. It should be ignored, as will resume the mainstream discussion. I was saying that the French "Language" or Italian "Linguaggio"could be translated into English by the word "Linguism" (= mode/way of speaking). For instance, Hemingway employed the conventional English language; however, an investigator of the way he forged his discourses may find some features or syntaxes that are peculiar to him. Therefore, he may talk about about Heminway's linguism. Thus, linguism is a man's private way of forging his speaking/language -- which is according to the French use of the term "Language". More importantly, I mentioned my old distinction between straightward/literary speaking and the Greek customary metaphorical speaking -- which needs some explanations. My philosophy of language (from 1974): En arche, at the beginning of human speaking, some humans started to give names to visible or tangible things in Nature, in their world -- things that were huge or events that affected them personally, such as storms, lightning induced fires, volcanic fires; plant-bearing lands, walking lands, seas, rivers, floodings, fruit-bearing trees, wild animals, prey animals, beasts of burden, flakeable stones, the starry sky, the planets (wandering "stars") and so forth. I should have said: -- things that were huge, or affecting events, or things that were affected by the humans themselves). Especially mighty affecting events raised human consciousness and were the first things to be named. I would use the generic word "god" to name such mighty events. The gods in question should be called Nature-gods (not figments of the imagination, as they were the most evident things in the world). // The names the people of a community used were used literally, that is, to denote/designate such visible or tangible things. When they started speaking in sentences, they started creating their ethnic language -- which is the greatest invention humans ever made. Man deserves to be defined as a "speaking animal". At a second stage of cerebral evolution, humans developed a reflexive consciousness; that is, they became aware of their own thoughts, thinking, aspirations, decisions, emotions, activities in the world, of their being the cause of various events, wherefore they saw themselves as agents rather than mere undergoers. Thus there developed non-nature-based or abstract concepts, such as Cause and Effect, Ends and Means, etc. In this connection, they created active and passive verbs, and assertoric and optative modalities of verbs. (Commands or imperative verbs were undoubtedly created earlier and were the roots of the newly created verbs. Names began to take nominative and accusative forms) At the same time, they started using their "naturalistic" names and verbs for things invisible or intangible such as their mental things and processes; they started speaking metaphorically. Metaphorical speaking = linguism (a manner/modality of speaking).
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 24, 2020 17:33:19 GMT
Page 31 substantive continuation of Page 30 In ordinary speaking, the Greeks, or especially the Greek poets, sometimes used one word/name as the name of something else. For instance, the name of a part (e.g., Sail) is used as the name of a whole (e.g., Boat), or the name of an effect is used as the name of a cause, or the name of an aspect/quality of a substance is used as the name of a substance. In all such and similar cases, there is a naming shift, a metonymy. All metonymies have been called Figures of Speech [metaphors, synedoches, etc.], as if they were embellishments, when in fact they are special ways of naming things; they can be called linguisms, since the names of ordinary/pristine languages are created/invented, are aboriginal. [As we are talking about the USE of names, rather than the invention or coinage of words, we are in the field of "semiotics", a sub-field of Linguistics. The study of the coinage of words has been relegated to Etymology, a sub-field of Linguistics.] Now, in the course of human history, the Nature-gods were personified; that is, they were conceived as having a mind, will, and emotions (just as humans do). As a Greek philosopher put it, men make the gods in their own image, that is, anthropomorphically. As persons, they are invisible and intangible. Hence, from a linguistic standpoint, we speak of them metaphorically: we use names and verbs of visible things to imaginatively describe their invisible substances and activities. [In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh is the lord or king of His People, who protects or punishes them in human fashion. He is not different from the Greek mythic gods, and Hebrew is largely based on the ancient Greek language. Believe it or not.] ============================================== CORRECTION ON PAGE 1: …. What I call Linguistics used to be called … Philology.... {Philology is, mainly, the intepretation or elucidation of texts in any language.}
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 24, 2020 22:11:21 GMT
Page 32 Allegorizations
The ancient Greeks were masters of personification, and Aesop, the famous fable teller, was one of them. He invented stories about animals who spoke and acted like human beings. [In so doing, the story teller would be informing children, in terms they could understand and enjoy, about the foibles or the malice of many humans.] Such personifications of animals are called allegories. The last Greek personifiers were Christians who wrote about God (Ho Theo`s -- as they translated the Hebrew Biblical "Yahweh" of Genesis-2.) They personified God's word/voice, which was then called Logos, and God's breath, which He used to make His clay statue [Adam/Man] alive. This person is called the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost. Allegories or "historical novels" have been written about the Logos, whom God infused into a human female -- as some Greek gods used to consort with humans. We know these allegories as the Gospels (biographies of Jesus the Christ), which Greek evangelists wrote or, more likely, extracted from a Greek Proto-Gospel. In late medieval Italian history, various abstract ideas were personified: Justice and other cardinal virtues, Death, Faith and the other two theological virtues, the angel who will sound a trumpet and summon the living and the dead for the Final Judgment, etc. Diversely attired, men portrayed Death and the others, and were carried on carts/floats during carnival celebrations. These carts were called Triumphs [The Triumph of Death, etc.] and were pictured on the 15th century Tarocchi (Tarot Cards, as they called in France), which we can still see in the Visconti-Sforza deck. The personification and portrayal of abstract ideas and of invisible things amounts to making in some way visible what is by nature invisible and intangible. This type of allegorization is the reverse of Aesop' allegorization, which starts with visible things (animals) and leads to conceptions (invisibles). In the realm of painting, Giorgio de Chirico in the 20th century produced a style of painting such that the painted (visible) objects lead to the conception or feeling of invisibles, namely Solitude, Mystery, Enigma, Farewell/Departure, Abandonment, etc. He called his allegories "Metaphysical Paintings" whereas Salvador Dali`called them and his own "Surrealistic Paintings". Wonderful paintings! Wonderful pictorial (non-linguistic) allegories.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 26, 2020 22:03:36 GMT
Page 33 continuation rom the last paragraph of Page32
The idea of "making invisibles visible" is not a new one. I remember that many years ago I came across a Renaissance esthetician, whose name escapes me, who said, in effect, that ART consists in making something visible which is invisible. I think he was thinking primarily of statues and paintings which depicted mythic gods (known from literature): The artists conceived man-like gods and gave them visible or tangible bodies. As far as I know, nobody ever though of music, or of Western Tonal music, operas, etc.) as making something inaudible audible; however, some musicians (and I, not too long ago) have propounded the theory that music makes human feelings/emotions audible -- translates feelings into sounds -- or somehow stirs feelings and emotions, even though the structured sounds of music cannot be be said to have qualities analogous to feelings and emotions. (So, there is a controversy about the nature of music as an art.) Anyway, it was in connection with that Renaissance theory that I came across the word "Concinnity" (to which I'll come back later on) as an alternative word for the "Beauty" of art-works. Online there are many articles about "making visible something invisible", including what is out of sight or indistinguishable, which is overcome by telescopes, microscopes, and X-ray photography; about some "symbolic" paintings and photographs , and some "abstract paintings" of the 20th century. However, in such cases, by "what is invisible" is meant what is normally out of sight or what is usually not noticed, such as the desperation of some people. (That's "verism" in 19th century Italian literature.) On the other hand, somebody wrote on the "metaphysics of perspective", which many painters have been using, but it is not clear as to what was invisible that they make visible. For instance, the Renaissance Piero della Francesca painted rooms and buildings in strict optic perspective, and thus belong in the same category as De Chirico's paintings, but all I can say about them , as a class, is that they are concinnate/beautiful (proportionate, harmonious) and make you ecstatic, carrying you, so to speak, beyond the physical appearance of what you see. For me, the experiential beauty of music lies in its melodies, not in its architecture or mathematical proportions, as some beauty-deaf theorists have believed.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 27, 2020 3:13:47 GMT
Page 34 substantive continuation of Page 33 I mentioned the fact that some (ancient Greek and Renaissance) painters and sculptors, who knew about gods from poetic literature (Homer, etc.) made gods visible by their artistic works. So, there was a correlation between older poetry and recent artworks. The ancient Roman poet Horace reflected on what poetry is or should be, and said "ut pictura poesis", that is, "as panting, so poetry": paintings depict things; poems describe, or should decribe, things. This is the very reverse of the aforementioned view that artists, informed by literature, made things visible or tangible by their physical artworks. Horace' famous phrase can also be taken to mean that painters illustrate or should illustrate what poets say instead of producing imaginative works. Indeed, he apparently gave rise to a school of illustrators rather than creative painters.(Most of the Renaissance painters and sculptors were illustrators of ancient mythology and, especially, the Christian literature, although they used their own wits to fashion divine and human persons and scenes, or to portray people they knew directly. They also made abstractions visible, such as Faith, Courage, Justice, and Nostalgia.)
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 27, 2020 17:29:12 GMT
Page 35 On CONCINNITY from Page 33
Before referring to the definition and etymology of this lemma/entry in a dictionary, I wish to briefly deal with some terms that we'll encounter: The Latin "Cinus" is an aromatic liquid that is extracted from artichokes, which used to grow wildly around the Mediterranean Sea (not in Arabia). In Italy, this extract is still used to make a delicious liqueur, a digestive, which is commercially named "Cynar". // English Artichoke < Old Italian Articiocco [now Carciofo]. Artichoke = Ancient Greek Kinara or Kunara [kynara]. Cf. Liddell-Scott Dictionary. {Artichoke has been scientifically classified, in Latin, as "Cynara Cardunculus".} The source of It. Articiocco is unknown and uncertain to me. The second half of the word, namely "-ciocco" may be based on Greek Kokhlos, Latin Cochlea, that is, "spiral shell (of a snail or a crustacean)", since an artichoke has pretty much the same shape. {A southern Italian *arto-kokhlos would be a bread bun that has the spiral shape of a snail-shell.} www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concinnity
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 27, 2020 21:42:46 GMT
Page 36 substantive continuation of Page 30 [En Arche...]
I stated briefly my old theory about what was named at the beginning of human speaking, since language is not something humans are born with, and since I never had reason to believe that some god gave humans an already developed language (which they could not understand to begin with). So, my insight had been that a language begins and grows out of human experiences, and that the earliest words were names of concrete things. My mental reconstruction of what was initially named and of the growth of language cannot be verified, since humans did not write the history of their linguistic activities. Only later on did some humans invent ways of writing what they spoke in their daily lives -- which did not include their linguistic activities. So, I also started speculating about the early stage of writing. I have been tempted to think that petroglyphs (figures carved on relatively smooth rocks), which have been found in Africa and in Europe, belong to the paleolithic period of mankind, when humans invented stone tools that could be used for making incisions on rocks. However, some figures (at least in the Italian Val Camonica) are of plows or plowmen, who belong to the Agricultural/Neolithic period of human history. The petroglyphs were made at an advanced stage of human history, when a language would include an agricultural Terminology (also called Glossary) and earth-goddesses such as Demeter. // The only early writings I can think of are the painted animals in caves of southern France. They are pictograms, not alphabetical scripts such as the ancient Greeks were to make later on. Those caves may have been classrooms where adults, who had named local animals, taught children to identify named animals that were dangerous or had to be hunted. Adults had stories to tell and memories to remember by the use of pigments on stone walls!
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 28, 2020 16:40:29 GMT
Page 37 from Page 33 on... In dealing with the idea of "making the invisible visible", I mentioned various arts and some artists, except drama or the theater. As you know, one of the great glories of ancient Greece, was the invention of dramatic literature and, literally, of the theater, a structured place for the public performance of the dramas. At this point, we can wander what the dramas revealed (as we can read in Sophocles' works, for instance), or whether the theater -- the enacted dramas -- made something invisible visible to the audience. (Aristotle touched on the nature and origin of tragedies [from "satyr plays"] and, very slightly, on the very issue I just presented.) However, in very recent times, there have been essays on "the theater of the invisible made visible", such as Shakespeare's "*theathrism", which I'll cite in a moment. To this I would add the theathrism of cinematographic geniuses such as Bergman and Antonioni. journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/3365 On the two geniuses:
learningandcreativity.com/silhouette/the
==================To add on Page 35: www.manusmenu.com/olive-oil-snail-bread-rolls
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 30, 2020 0:20:51 GMT
Page 38 In my recent posts (in this thread), logological discussions drifted (naturally, not accidentally) into a Renaissance theory about the nature of the arts, into the consideration of various kinds of art, and into aesthetics (the philosophical investigation of Beauty). Even though *artilogy (theory of art) and aesthetics are not parts of Logology, I wish to add a few remarks about some esthetic phenomena -- since I have been dealing with what is visible or tangible, manifest, evident, and what is invisible (which art supposedly makes or should make evident), and since human language (and thinking) is geared to the realm of the visible (Nature), wherefore to speak of invisibles is to use this language metaphorically. As we personify some visibles, we also put our "natural" language in their mouths. On the other hand, as the prophets of religions are the real inventors of the discourses of their gods, prophetic language is or can be both literary ("natural") and metaphorical. To begin with, what we call Aesthetics has usually meant to be art-theory (which I just called "Artilogy") plus "Theory of Beauty", the Beauty which art is supposed to manifest. However, not too long ago, when people started talking about the beauty of or in Nature, and in the Age of Romanticism, painters kept on producing paintings of beautiful scenes of nature, the word "Aesthetics" was no longer confused with "theory of art" and it should not be. Already in the late Middle Ages, people spoke, without reference to beauty, of what exists BY NATURE (formerly, BY GOD) and what exists BY ART. So, in speaking of the Dignity of Man, humanist Manetti said, Ours [Of our own making] are the languages, the laws, …. In the late Renaissance (16th century), Tiziano painted "Amor Sacro e Amor Profano" (= Sacred Love and Profane Love), which are personified by two ladies and their whole environment. The parts of the painting and the painting as a whole are extremely beautiful, but I am not mentioning the work as an instance of art that conveys Beauty; I am introducing the concept of "the sacred". Its opposite, "the Profane", literally means "what lies outside the shrine (or temple)" and implies that a shrine is something sacred. In this line of thought, many sites available on the internet, present pictures of ancient and modern temples as Sacred things. In ancient Greek and Roman times, it was primarily places of Nature, such as groves of trees, that were sacred. Why were they considered and named Sacred? I suppose that they were, because of some extraordinary events or manifestations in those places, such as the apparition of luminous ghosts (which I identify with "tectonic lights" and others call "unidentified Flying Objects). A grove sacred to Hermes (the god who invented the lyre) would be a grove of trees of different heights which, when struck by the wind, produce polyphonic music or rustlings. {to continue…}
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 30, 2020 16:57:13 GMT
Page 39 substantive continuation of Page 38 It may be useful for some of you to look at Tiziano's painting: restaurars.altervista.org/amor-sacro-e-amor-profano-unauser-controversa If one is not familiar with the painting's title and, indeed, with the subject of discussion at hand, he is likely to see a summer scene in which there is a pool of water, a child, on the back side, and, at the front, two ladies sitting, one of whom is semi-nude, and the other is still sumptuously dressed. It is most unlikely that, for him, the painting makes Sacredness or Profanity visible. Some learned analyst may find that the child is the ancient Cupid (Eros; Love) and conjecture that the two ladies are loved persons, and even go so far as to think that the semi-nude lady is loved on account of her beautiful body. // Even if we interpret the painting according to its title, we still have the question, What is Sacredness (The Sacred)? What is Profanity (The Profane)? {Incidentally, these parenthetical terms are not in conventional English, but most appropriate in Italian, in German, and in some other languages. For instance, a music critic, speaking in German, raised the question, "What is The Beautiful in music?" We speak of Being, Beauty, Water, Bread, etc., whereas the Greeks, the Italians, the French, and others speak of "The Being": To On; l'Essere; l'e^tre; etc. These nouns with the article mean "That which is" and the like. Greek uses also this very phrase, "to ti esti". Latin does not have articles but, like English, uses the present participle of verbs as nouns, wherefore, to say, "About Being", they say "De Ente". Notice the Greek and Latin use of their present participles: On/Ontos; Ens/Entis -- which are cognate words, the Latin ones historically proceeding from the Greek ones. Italian, French, etc., exemplied above, use the infinitive forms verbs.}
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 30, 2020 18:53:19 GMT
Page 40 resuming the mainstream discussion (About The Sacred) on Page 39 What exactly is The Sacred? Around the beginning of the 20th century, there was a flurry of studies and publications about the human phenomenon called Religion. (These were anthropological studies, not expositions of world religions.) Two outstanding works: Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion" // Otto's "Das Heilege" (The Holy). // As the Latin word "Numen" means "god; daemon/spirit" and the like, the English term "The Numinous" was used to denote more than "The Sacred" does. However, the same question remains, "What is the Numinous?" Or, "How does The Numinous become manifest?" Places on earth where divination is conducted were occasionally called sacred or numinous. Places, regions, of the sky where omens were taken/interpreted (by the Etruscans) were also called sacred or numinous, especially in the sense that those regions were occupied by certain gods (who "spoke" by means of events, such as the flights of birds). Earth gods and subterranean gods also occupied specific places. Anyway, students found that in human history there are sacred places and times. Accordingly, for example, the Christian liturgical year celebrates the biography of Jesus Christ and of holy Christians as well. Some souls of dead Christians return to earth on the evening of November the First, All-Saints Day, wherefore, it is called the Holy Evening (Hallow Eve; Halloween). They search for food rather than blood, as souls of dead Greeks used to in order to put life into themselves. Places where gods appeared were obviously deemed sacred, but so were places where humans conducted non-religious rituals, such as the Eleusinian Mysteries (which I have described elsewhere). So, The Sacred is not necessarily connected with religion. Instead of an anthropology of Religion, we need a psychology of religion, of divination, of sacred rituals, and of magic/sorcery, for The Sacred or Numinous is, first of all, a human feeling, the feeling of something eerie, awesome, mysterious, which can be the feeling of an "invisible presence" in a room that is watching you and may even talk to you -- actually from the bottom of your subconscious memories. // Tiziano's painting does not elicit The Sacred, in the sense of the just described feeling. It is a very beautiful work of art. Try this: restaurars.altervista.org/amor-sacro-e-amor-profano-unopera-controversa
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 1, 2020 2:53:03 GMT
Page 41 Closing the discussion about Concinnity, Theory of Art, and Aesthetics: I have been reading an online extraordinary doctoral thesis about the history of Art Theory and specifically about the Renaissance painter and theorist Alberti. As it is written in Italian, by Elisabetta Di Stefano, it should be translated for the general English reader. Meanwhile, for those who can read it: www.academia.edu/293162/L_altro_sapere_Bello_Arte_Immagine_in_Leon_Battista_Alberti
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 1, 2020 22:01:47 GMT
Page 42 INTERPRETATION, AETIOLOGY, ETYMOLOGY These three words refer to three vast fields of investigation and, thereafter, three fields of learnings [mathemata], the results of investigations.
"Interpretation" is commonly understood as the translation that is made between two people who speak different languages. More generally, it is the explanation or elucidation of something obscure (to oneself or to others). So, here we include the "interpretation of omens", "the interpretation of clues which a detective has found", the interpretation of the nature of human history, or art, or beauty, and so forth. The English word INTERPRET- comes, through French, from the Latin INTERPRET-, which seems to be a Latin compound of INTER (= Between) + Pret-, which = to inform, point out, indicate. "Pret-" is from a Greek word that has variations according to the dialects in which was used in very ancient times:
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 2, 2020 16:28:24 GMT
Page 43 substantive continuation of Page 42
Cf. Liddell-Scott Dictionary: Pratto, Prasso, (Ionic) Presso = to inform, tell, expound. [Then P = PH:] Phrazo, (Doric) Phrasdo = to show, point out, indicate, make known; to suppose in "accusative + infinitive" constructions [such as, "I suppose/think him to be ill"]. Phrasis [verbal noun, from the above verb] = speech, way of speaking, phraseology. {Latin is from Greek. as it is evident in innumerable cases.} After the fact, after the attempts by some Greek people to interpret the names of some of their gods, and after the attribution to Hermes of the fatherhood of philology (the interpretation/exegesis of words or discourses), some Greek coined the verb Hermeneuo (= to interpret), which can be translated literally as "To Hermetize". Hermes is also the father of music and the protector of travelers and merchants, wherefore he is known in Latin as Mercurius. [Merc- is an Oscan (Italic) word, the ultimate basis of the English "merchant" and "market". This reminds me of the very beautiful Catalan folksong, "La Fille du Marxant" -- The Merchant's Daughter. The music in question is a translation of her beauty! As you can see, I hermetize.] Yesterday ["Where are the snows of yesteryear?" I am reminded of this fascinating phrase I met when I was learning the English language] Yesterday, Laurec, in another thread ["Interpretations as Emergent"], showed concern with the validity or accuracy of interpretations. I'd say that each field of investigation has, or hopefully has, its own criteria of validity. The diagnoses of medical doctors, of auto mechanics, and others, are ultimately evaluated by the results of their prescriptions or restorations, which is impossible for the diagnoses of crime detectives and court judges. Only the ancient Roman jurisprudence has a principle or criterion as to what constitutes a crime, namely the suppression of the social freedom of the citizens of the republic. Much more remains to be said on this topic and on Philology.]
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 2, 2020 19:13:47 GMT
Page 44 substantive continuation of Page 43 As you might expect, Gr. Exegesis [< Exegeomai] = interpretation, translation, explanation, exegesis; and Exegetes = interpreter (as of omens, dreams, etc.) These terms can be used also in respect to the interpretations of words and discourses, wherefore, "Interpretation" as a field of linguistic investigation can be called Philology or Exegesiology, which can be nicely coupled with Aetioloy and Etymology (as in the title of the Page 42). Is there a standard method to carry out exegeses? No. Is there a criterion of validity for exegeses? Not that I know of. A philologist works out of his own knowledge and intuition, and may be supplanted by a better philologist, but a spectator/reader has no criteria whereby to judge the interpretations. Certainty is not attainable in any field of interpretation; there are only degrees of probability, even for a philologist himself. So, an interpretation is, at best, a learned conjecture. The makers of "etymological" dictionaries express the meaning of a word (a lemma or entry) by examining many sentences in which the word was used by original writers, and that is why, for example, a Greek word is translated by many English words which, however, exhibit only different shades of meaning. Theirs is a good and sufficient method. There is no hope for extinct unwritten languages.
|
|