Sauron a lizard?
Brad
account of actual evidence in the book that he may have been....
1. First of all is his name. The dictionary describe a "saurian" as being
"of, or like a lizard".
2. his sankelike Eye with the slit-pupil.
3. The occasional hissing of Gollum, and the Nazgul (who are enslaved to
Sauron's will).
Iv'e never heard these points brought up before, I'll be interested in
hearing what y'all tgink about it.
-Cheers Brad
Mark Wells
> My vision Sauron's appearance is at least somewhat reptillian, on
>account of actual evidence in the book that he may have been....
Interesting theory, but it has some problems. See below.
>1. First of all is his name. The dictionary describe a "saurian" as being
>"of, or like a lizard".
His name is a Quenya word meaning 'foul one'. 'Saurian' is from
Latin. Tolkien would of course have noticed the connection, but
there's no good internal reason for Sauron to have a Latin name.
Nobody in Middle-earth speaks Latin.
>2. his sankelike Eye with the slit-pupil.
Lots of animals have slit-pupils. Cats, for example.
>3. The occasional hissing of Gollum, and the Nazgul (who are enslaved to
>Sauron's will).
Gollum certainly isn't enslaved to Sauron's will.
Actually, Sauron did turn into a snake once in the First Age, when
Huan had him by the throat. It didn't do him much good. (As the Evil
Overlord's Manual says, "I will not turn into a snake. It never
helps.")
dara...@my-deja.com
'Saurian' is from Latin. Tolkien would of course have noticed the
connection, but there's no good internal reason for Sauron to have a
Latin name. Nobody in Middle-earth speaks Latin."
Dear Andrew,
I might be wrong here, but didn't Mr. Tolkien give his pronuciation
of 'Sauron' as Sow - ron? I myself have always thought 'Sauron'
pronounced as Soar - ron sounded better, but I remember reading
somewhere that Mr. Tolkien pronounced it differently.
Maybe some of our eminent Tolkienologists can help me out here.
Cheers,
Paul
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
elyse
In the note on pronunciation at the end of The Sil. the proper pronunciation
of Sauron is mentioned. Under the heading "AU" is the following: "...has the
value of ow in English town; thus... the first syllable of Sauron is like
English sour, not sore." -- Eruve
dara...@my-deja.com
Elyse's lore: "In the note on pronunciation at the end of The Sil. the
proper pronunciation of Sauron is mentioned. Under the heading "AU" is
the following: "...has the value of ow in English town; thus... the
first syllable of Sauron is like English sour, not sore." -- Eruve"
Dear Elyse,
Thanks for coming thru with the lore. Don't you think that Sauron
pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than 'Sour-ron' though?
elyse
dara...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Elyse,
>
> Thanks for coming thru with the lore. Don't you think that Sauron
> pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than 'Sour-ron' though?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Yes, I think it sounds better to say "Sore-on", but perhaps I was
overinfluenced by seeing the Bakshi movie before reading LOTR. IIRC they
pronounced it "Sore-on" in the movie, and there's no clear mention of the
correct pronunciation in the appendices. (I'm sure of that because I had to
dig to find your answer, and I knew I had seen it somewhere, and I was
frustrated to find it wasn't in LOTR.) Anyway throughout the intervening year
and a half between the time I first read LOTR and SIL.. I pronounced it as
Sore-on, too. -- Eruve
Mark Wells
wrote:
> I might be wrong here, but didn't Mr. Tolkien give his pronuciation
>of 'Sauron' as Sow - ron? I myself have always thought 'Sauron'
>pronounced as Soar - ron sounded better, but I remember reading
>somewhere that Mr. Tolkien pronounced it differently.
Yes, that's right. That's standard Elvish pronunciation: all diphthongs
are 'falling' rather than 'rising'. AI (and AE, to some extent) is
pronounced as in 'rye', AU is pronounced as in 'cow', etc.
Andrew Wells
> Mr Well's comments: "His name is a Quenya word meaning 'foul one'.
>'Saurian' is from Latin. Tolkien would of course have noticed the
>connection, but there's no good internal reason for Sauron to have a
>Latin name. Nobody in Middle-earth speaks Latin."
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
>of 'Sauron' as Sow - ron? I myself have always thought 'Sauron'
>pronounced as Soar - ron sounded better, but I remember reading
>somewhere that Mr. Tolkien pronounced it differently.
Paul
Please don't confuse Andrew Wells with Mark Wells
Thanks
Andrew
--
Andrew Wells
Change 10 to 9 to reach me
Don't spam me, spam ab...@force9.net
Coverdale
<dara...@my-deja.com> wrote :
> Don't you think that Sauron pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than
'Sour-ron' though?
>
I think just plain old 'Ron' would have been good. Doesn't sound so
hard and mean though. Perhaps Tolkien got the idea for 'Sauron'
because his postman was called 'Ron' and he was a bit 'sour'. Perhaps
he didn't 'ring' the doorbell when he had a parcel but just left it
outside the (Mor)door.
Sorry.
--
Robert Steven Coverdale
Nathan E. Banks <Paganini>
> In article <8074m5$bk7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dara...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Elyse,
> >
> > pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than 'Sour-ron' though?
> >
> >
> > Paul
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Yes, I think it sounds better to say "Sore-on", but perhaps I was
> overinfluenced by seeing the Bakshi movie before reading LOTR. IIRC they
> pronounced it "Sore-on" in the movie, and there's no clear mention of the
> correct pronunciation in the appendices. (I'm sure of that because I had to
> dig to find your answer, and I knew I had seen it somewhere, and I was
> frustrated to find it wasn't in LOTR.) Anyway throughout the intervening year
> and a half between the time I first read LOTR and SIL.. I pronounced it as
> Sore-on, too. -- Eruve
It does tell in the appendixes (appendix E) but not in direct connection
with Sauron.
--
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
MOOk, the Great High Llama
ICQ 34492883
http://web.madisontelco.com/~paganini
PGP Public Key Fingerprint
6FE8 F777 A4A7 A7D6 F381 7596 BAD6 8C43 EAF8 F60F
Shrike
>
> Mr Well's comments: "His name is a Quenya word meaning 'foul one'.
> 'Saurian' is from Latin. Tolkien would of course have noticed the
> connection, but there's no good internal reason for Sauron to have a
> Latin name. Nobody in Middle-earth speaks Latin."
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I might be wrong here, but didn't Mr. Tolkien give his pronuciation
> of 'Sauron' as Sow - ron?
Meaning that he was actually a cow, of course.
--
Bill
Lizard my ass...udderly ridiculous.
Oops. Pun intended.
grimgard
Brad wrote:
> My vision Sauron's appearance is at least somewhat reptillian, on
> account of actual evidence in the book that he may have been....
>
> 1. First of all is his name. The dictionary describe a "saurian" as being
> "of, or like a lizard".
>
> 2. his sankelike Eye with the slit-pupil.
>
> 3. The occasional hissing of Gollum, and the Nazgul (who are enslaved to
> Sauron's will).
>
> Iv'e never heard these points brought up before, I'll be interested in
> hearing what y'all tgink about it.
>
> -Cheers Brad
I tgink it sounds pretty tgood! : )
grimgard
grimgard
Coverdale wrote:
> <dara...@my-deja.com> wrote :
>
> > Don't you think that Sauron pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than
> 'Sour-ron' though?
> >
>
> I think just plain old 'Ron' would have been good. Doesn't sound so
> hard and mean though. Perhaps Tolkien got the idea for 'Sauron'
> because his postman was called 'Ron' and he was a bit 'sour'. Perhaps
> he didn't 'ring' the doorbell when he had a parcel but just left it
> outside the (Mor)door.
>
> Sorry.
>
> --
> Robert Steven Coverdale
Cute. Take two chuckles from petty cash. : )
grimgard
Robert Brady
>On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:10:53 GMT, dara...@my-deja.com <dara...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> I might be wrong here, but didn't Mr. Tolkien give his pronuciation
>>of 'Sauron' as Sow - ron? I myself have always thought 'Sauron'
>>pronounced as Soar - ron sounded better, but I remember reading
>>somewhere that Mr. Tolkien pronounced it differently.
>Yes, that's right. That's standard Elvish pronunciation: all diphthongs
>are 'falling' rather than 'rising'. AI (and AE, to some extent) is
>pronounced as in 'rye', AU is pronounced as in 'cow', etc.
Not just that, but the word form didn't exist until long after the character
of Sauron was created. First he was called Thu, and then through a series of
changes to the Elvish languages, this ended up being "Thauron", or "Sauron",
which means "terrible one", I think.
It has _no_ relation to lizards.
--
Robert
R. Vink
dara...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Mr Well's comments: "His name is a Quenya word meaning 'foul one'.
> 'Saurian' is from Latin. Tolkien would of course have noticed the
> connection, but there's no good internal reason for Sauron to have a
> Latin name. Nobody in Middle-earth speaks Latin."
>
They wouldn't need to, if Sauros was Greek. :)
Renée V.
--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
Karim Arain
>
>
>
> Elyse's lore: "In the note on pronunciation at the end of The Sil. the
>proper pronunciation of Sauron is mentioned. Under the heading "AU" is
>the following: "...has the value of ow in English town; thus... the
>first syllable of Sauron is like English sour, not sore." -- Eruve"
>
>
> Dear Elyse,
>
> Thanks for coming thru with the lore. Don't you think that Sauron
>pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than 'Sour-ron' though?
Well, I don't. I definitely prefer "Sour-ron". But maybe that's just
because I'm German and a German would quite naturally pronounce the
name that way (BTW: most of the names from Tolkien seem to be
correctly pronounced the way most Germans would intuitively pronounce
them).
Ciao. Karim
--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.
Alatar
Andrew Wells wrote:
>Paul
>
>Please don't confuse Andrew Wells with Mark Wells
>
>Thanks
>
>Andrew
>--
>Andrew Wells
Are we allowed to confuse Andrew with Andrew Wells? They are so alike they
both sign the same post ;-)
--
Alatar
dara...@my-deja.com
Doesn't sound so hard and mean though. Perhaps Tolkien got the idea for
'Sauron' because his postman was called 'Ron' and he was a bit 'sour'.
Perhaps he didn't 'ring' the doorbell when he had a parcel but just
left it outside the (Mor)door."
Pretty good Ron :) I got a good laugh out of your 'explanation'. I
also liked the Xmas Carol. Maybe Ojevind or Prembone (or you) can do
something with that.
dara...@my-deja.com
maybe that's just because I'm German and a German would quite naturally
pronounce the name that way (BTW: most of the names from Tolkien seem
to be correctly pronounced the way most Germans would intuitively
pronounce them)."
That's cool. No problem.
Andrew Wells
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Sorry, I'm in a bad mood at the moment.
Chris Kern
following:
> Thanks for coming thru with the lore. Don't you think that Sauron
>pronounced 'Sore-ron' sounds better than 'Sour-ron' though?
I prefer "Sour-on" personally. I used to say "Sar-on" (rhymes with
"far") until I learned the true pronunciation. But I'm a stickler for
that, and I always try to pronounce the names like Tolkien intended.
Sometimes it's hard. I find "Hurin" and "Turin" difficult to
pronounce, and I usually say them rhyming with "Fur" rather than the
"oo" sound that the "u" is supposed to have.
-Chris
Jones & McAuley
> In article <806sm7$57n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dara...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Mr Well's comments: "His name is a Quenya word meaning 'foul one'.
> > 'Saurian' is from Latin. Tolkien would of course have noticed the
> > connection, but there's no good internal reason for Sauron to have a
> > Latin name. Nobody in Middle-earth speaks Latin."
> >
> > Dear Andrew,
> >
> > I might be wrong here, but didn't Mr. Tolkien give his pronuciation
> > of 'Sauron' as Sow - ron? I myself have always thought 'Sauron'
> > pronounced as Soar - ron sounded better, but I remember reading
> > somewhere that Mr. Tolkien pronounced it differently.
> >
> > Maybe some of our eminent Tolkienologists can help me out here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> In the note on pronunciation at the end of The Sil. the proper pronunciation
> of Sauron is mentioned. Under the heading "AU" is the following: "...has the
> value of ow in English town; thus... the first syllable of Sauron is like
> English sour, not sore." -- Eruve
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
But, I'm fairly sure that Tolkien would have pronounced the Latin word Saurian as "Sour-Ian" too. The normal pronunciation of dinosaur was "dyno-sour" until they entered popular culture about 20 years
ago.
Eoin
Jones & McAuley
> My vision Sauron's appearance is at least somewhat reptillian, on
> account of actual evidence in the book that he may have been....
Sauron was a Maiar. At first he could take any bodily form he wanted. After the downfall of Numenor, he lost the ability to take on good looking forms. I think the same think happened to the much more
powerful Morgoth at some point too.
I always took it that Sauron's bodily form was an eye and nothing else, just a disembodied eye in a sort of cloud on the top of a ... pyramid? Sound familiar? I'll bet you a dollar it does!
But it might have been a lizard's disembodied eye?
Eoin
PS My spelling checker suggests "Saurian" as a possible alternative for the unknown word "Sauron".
Brad
Coverdale wrote in message <80bkd0$22dd$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>
>The eye in the pyramid on US Dollar bills is of Masonic origin.
>Masonry was a major force behind the American Revolution. Nearly all
>of the men who signed the declaration of independence in 1778 were
>Freemasons.
>
>The symbolism itself is of Ancient Egyptian origin and represents God
>in the form of Amon-Re having an ever present eye, casting his gaze
>over his people to judge every action they make in life so that they
>may get their just desserts in death.
>
>Also, the original dollar symbol of an 'S' with two vertical strike
>throughs is also a Masonic symbol, the 'S' was borrowed from an
>earlier Spanish coin but the two vertical lines represent the twin
>pillars of Boaz and Jachin - the original pillars of the porchway to
>King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem.
>
>--
>Rob.
>
I heard somewhere once that Benjamin Franklin (I think it was him, anyway)
got the eye/pyramid idea from a mysterious, cloaked and hooded figure, as he
was taking a walk around DC.. Benjamin (correct me if I have a the wrong
name), turned away for a second, and when he turned back to thank the man,
he had vanished!
-Brad
Coverdale
Jones & McAuley <jon...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:3828B50B...@gofree.indigo.ie...
> I always took it that Sauron's bodily form was an eye and nothing
>else, just a disembodied eye in a sort of cloud on the top of a ...
>pyramid? Sound familiar? I'll bet you a dollar it does!
The eye in the pyramid on US Dollar bills is of Masonic origin.
dara...@my-deja.com
Dear Andrew,
My bad. I realized what I'd done about 10 seconds after I posted
it. I hope I haven't offended you (or Mark) with this mistake.
Sincerely,
dara...@my-deja.com
pronounce the names like Tolkien intended. Sometimes it's hard. I
find "Hurin" and "Turin" difficult to pronounce, and I usually say them
rhyming with "Fur" rather than the "oo" sound that the "u" is supposed
to have."
Dear Chis,
I too find it hard to pronounce Hurin & Turin as Mr. Tolkien
intended. I must say I think 'Hooorin'/'Tooorin' are sort of goofy
names. I probably would have made fun of their names when they and I
were kids (except that Turin probably would have killed me) :). I
don't think it's any big deal to use the 'ur' sound instead of 'oo'
myself. Glad to find someone else who has noticed that.
Cheers,
grimgard
Jones & McAuley wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>
> > My vision Sauron's appearance is at least somewhat reptillian, on
> > account of actual evidence in the book that he may have been....
>
> Sauron was a Maiar. At first he could take any bodily form he wanted. After the downfall of Numenor, he lost the ability to take on good looking forms. I think the same think happened to the much more
> powerful Morgoth at some point too.
>
> I always took it that Sauron's bodily form was an eye and nothing else, just a disembodied eye in a sort of cloud on the top of a ... pyramid? Sound familiar? I'll bet you a dollar it does!
>
> But it might have been a lizard's disembodied eye?
>
> Eoin
>
> PS My spelling checker suggests "Saurian" as a possible alternative for the unknown word "Sauron".
There is a point in a discussion among Frodo, Sam and Gollum when Frodo remarks that Isildur had cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Gollum confirms that Sauron only has four fingers on 'the black
hand.' Besides that, unless he had his eyelid pierced, he would have to wear the Ring somewhere.
grimgard
Prembone
wrote:
> Besides that, unless he had his eyelid pierced, he would have
> to wear the Ring somewhere.
Piercing wouldn't have been possible: It was a "lidless eye." ;-)
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
~~~Woo-hoo!!!~~~
Andrew Wells
> Andrew's comment: "Please don't confuse Andrew Wells with Mark Wells"
> Dear Andrew,
>
> My bad. I realized what I'd done about 10 seconds after I posted
>it. I hope I haven't offended you (or Mark) with this mistake.
No worries.
Coverdale
They're nowhere near as horrible as Sauron.
Leave them alone and stop picking on them.
--
Rob
Steuard Jensen
> What the hecks wrong with lizards?
So... what exactly does this have to do with the post of Prembone's
that you're responding to? Yes, the thread seems to have drifted a
little from the stated subject line, but that means it's time to
change the label, not the topic...
ObTolkien: How significant are the titles of books when we read them?
Do you think that peoples' experiences in reading RotK would have been
substantially different if it had been entitled _The War of the Ring_
as Tolkien at one point suggested? Would our feelings about the book
have been different if they'd been published in six volumes (each with
attached title) rather than three? A somewhat silly question, but
interesting nonetheless. (I wonder if my mother would even be
interested in reading a book with a title about a war...)
Steuard Jensen
Creole
grimgard wrote:
> There is a point in a discussion among Frodo, Sam and Gollum when Frodo remarks that Isildur had cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Gollum confirms that Sauron only has four fingers on 'the black
> hand.' Besides that, unless he had his eyelid pierced, he would have to wear the Ring somewhere.
Now that's one mental picture that sent me giggling. Thank you. :)
But if the messenger at the Black Gate was his Mouth...? Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Creole
Coverdale
Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:iLnW3.114$j4.2740@uchinews...
> Quoth "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk>:
> > What the hecks wrong with lizards?
> [snip more about lizards]
>
> So... what exactly does this have to do with the post of Prembone's
> that you're responding to? Yes, the thread seems to have drifted a
> little from the stated subject line, but that means it's time to
> change the label, not the topic...
I think there's been a sense of humour failure here somewhere. My post
was a light hearted response to the strange subject heading not to
Prembone's post. I didn't see any reason to change the subject heading
considering that my post was about Lizards and Sauron.
If you want a serious answer to the question - no Sauron was not a
lizard.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Brad <aq...@aloha.net> wrote in message
news:mUnW3.792$0N3.1...@news.aloha.net...
> I heard somewhere once that Benjamin Franklin (I think it was him,
>anyway) got the eye/pyramid idea from a mysterious, cloaked and
>hooded figure, as he was taking a walk around DC.. Benjamin (correct
>me if I have a the wrong name), turned away for a second, and when he
>turned back to thank the man, he had vanished!
Oh right ...yeah....I can see how a mysterious hooded figure could be
mistaken for a walking cycloptic pyramid.... ;-)
Seriously, Benjamin Franklin was a Freemason. The symbolism is of
Ancient Egyptian origin.
--
Rob
Jon Meltzer
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>If you want a serious answer to the question - no Sauron was not a
>lizard.
Actually, Sauron was a pussycat. :-)
Gordon Walker
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Quoth "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk>:
>> What the hecks wrong with lizards?
>[snip more about lizards]
>
>So... what exactly does this have to do with the post of Prembone's
>that you're responding to? Yes, the thread seems to have drifted a
>little from the stated subject line, but that means it's time to
>change the label, not the topic...
>
>ObTolkien: How significant are the titles of books when we read them?
>Do you think that peoples' experiences in reading RotK would have been
>substantially different if it had been entitled _The War of the Ring_
>as Tolkien at one point suggested?
Personally it would have made no difference. To me any series has
always been a single book published as it is for purely pragmatic
purposes. The titles of the books have no more significance to me than
chapter headings. Indeed, now I prefer to read it in the single volume
edition.
--
Gordon Walker
Öjevind Lång
From an English-speaker's perspective this may be so; but I believe that in
just about every contintental language, Tolkien's pronunciations make sense
and are pretty much how most of us would have pronounced them
spontaneousley. The only exception to that rule I can think of as a
Swedish-speaker is the hard "k" sound in Celeborn, Celegorm and so on; a
Swede would be likely to pronounce it like "cedar" or "cement".
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
>Brad <aq...@aloha.net> wrote in message
>
>> I heard somewhere once that Benjamin Franklin (I think it was him,
>>anyway) got the eye/pyramid idea from a mysterious, cloaked and
[snip]
>>turned back to thank the man, he had vanished!
>
>Oh right ...yeah....I can see how a mysterious hooded figure could be
>mistaken for a walking cycloptic pyramid.... ;-)
>
>Seriously, Benjamin Franklin was a Freemason. The symbolism is of
>Ancient Egyptian origin.
That may be what the freemasons claim, but it is not really true. I believe
the symbol comes from the so-called "hermeneutic texts", various occult,
medical and religious texts written by Greeks in Egypt in late antiquity,
(3d and 4th centuries A. D.) and ascribed to Hermes Trismegistos, "the Three
Times Greatest Hermes", the messenger of the Greek gods, whom these late
Egyptian Greeks identified with the Egyptian god Thot. These occult writings
were influential during the European middle Ages and were apparently taken
up by the masonic lodges, which originally (from the 14th century) were just
guilds for English bricklayers and stone-masons, but which in the 17th and
18th cenuries began to admit members from the higher classes and became
secret societies dedicated to the improvement of mankind (and to a lot of
strange ceremonies). Masonic lodges were founded in many European countries
and spread to America. The freemasons were very active in various reform
movements, and apparently during the French Revolution; the Pope banned
freemasonry in 1783, which resulted in the lodges in Catholic countries
becoming something of an underground movement.
The eye in a pyramid is a masonic symbol for the Goddess of Reason. Or
perhaps just for reason and enlightenment in general, I'm not sure.
Öjevind
Robert S. Coren
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>> Paul (dara...@my-deja.com) hath written:
>>
>> I too find it hard to pronounce Hurin & Turin as Mr. Tolkien
>>intended. I must say I think 'Hooorin'/'Tooorin' are sort of goofy
>>names. I probably would have made fun of their names when they and I
>>were kids (except that Turin probably would have killed me) :). I
>>don't think it's any big deal to use the 'ur' sound instead of 'oo'
>>myself. Glad to find someone else who has noticed that.
>
>
>From an English-speaker's perspective this may be so; but I believe that in
>just about every contintental language, Tolkien's pronunciations make sense
>and are pretty much how most of us would have pronounced them
>spontaneousley. The only exception to that rule I can think of as a
>Swedish-speaker is the hard "k" sound in Celeborn, Celegorm and so on; a
>Swede would be likely to pronounce it like "cedar" or "cement".
Sweeping statements about language are dangerous. :-) I won't pretend
to know about "just about every continental language", but I'll point
out that all of the Romance languages expect "c" to be modified by
following "e" or "i"; that in French the first syllable of "Sauron"
would be pronounced approximately like English "so"; that in German
the initial "s" would be voiced; etc.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg
cackles as if she had laid an asteroid." -- Mark Twain
Öjevind Lång
>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>> Paul (dara...@my-deja.com) hath written:
>>>
>>> I too find it hard to pronounce Hurin & Turin as Mr. Tolkien
>>>intended. I must say I think 'Hooorin'/'Tooorin' are sort of goofy
>>>names. I probably would have made fun of their names when they and I
>>>were kids (except that Turin probably would have killed me) :). I
>>>don't think it's any big deal to use the 'ur' sound instead of 'oo'
>>>myself. Glad to find someone else who has noticed that.
>>
>>
>>From an English-speaker's perspective this may be so; but I believe that
in
>>just about every contintental language, Tolkien's pronunciations make
sense
>>and are pretty much how most of us would have pronounced them
>>spontaneousley. The only exception to that rule I can think of as a
>>Swedish-speaker is the hard "k" sound in Celeborn, Celegorm and so on; a
>>Swede would be likely to pronounce it like "cedar" or "cement".
>
>Sweeping statements about language are dangerous. :-) I won't pretend
>to know about "just about every continental language", but I'll point
>out that all of the Romance languages expect "c" to be modified by
>following "e" or "i"; that in French the first syllable of "Sauron"
>would be pronounced approximately like English "so"; that in German
>the initial "s" would be voiced; etc.
Well, I did try not to be too sweeping. :-) That's why I wrote that his
pronunciations "make sense" to continentals and that they "pretty much" were
how "most of us" would have pronounced them spontaneously. That is to say,
they are actually less strange to us than they seem to be to native
English-speakers. Perhaps I should have tried to be even more circumspect,
but my point remains. As for the voiced "s" in German, I do think that is a
minor point; I believe Germans have few problems spontaneously pronouncing
the names the way Tolkien preferred them to be pronounced.
You could have added that an Italian would spontaneously pronounce
Celeborn as "Cheleborn", and so on; but I still think that the
pronounciations would seem more natural, as it were, to most continentals
than to English-speakers.
Öjevind
Robert S. Coren
Well, I'm an English-speaker, so I'm not expert on what would seem
"natural" to anyone else, but it seems to me that speakers of Romance
languages would have at least as hard a time (supposing that any of
this stuff is "hard":-)) with "hard c" before e and i; this is
possibly even more true of "g", which *is* frequently "hard" in that
position in English (giving and getting), but never is so in French,
Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese, as far as I know.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"When angry, count four; when very angry, swear." -- Mark Twain
Coverdale
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote
> That may be what the freemasons claim, but it is not really true. I
>believe the symbol comes from the so-called "hermeneutic texts",
>various occult, medical and religious texts written by Greeks in
>Egypt in late antiquity, (3d and 4th centuries A. D.)
No. The symbol predates 1500 BC. The Greeks likely just picked
it up in Egypt.
>These occult writings were influential during the European middle
>Ages and were apparently taken up by the masonic lodges, which
>originally (from the14th century) were just guilds for English
>bricklayers and stone-masons,
Nope.This is incorrect. There are no records at all that medieval
stone mason's "guilds" existed in England at this time.Most
stonemasons of the middle ages were illiterate and would have had
little or no education beyond their craft. This makes it highly
unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher classes.
There is now a growing body of evidence that Freemasonry originated
with the French Knights Templar order. It's a common misconception
that Freemasonry originated with stone masons undoubtedly because of
the term "mason". The origins of the "mason" term is much more likely
to originate in Freemasonry's fascination with the construction and
sacred symbolism of the architecture of King Solomon's Temple.
The full title of the Knights Templar was "The Poor Fellow-Soldiers
of Christ and the Temple of Solomon". I expect it's also English
patriotism that leads to the claims of Freemasonry originating with
English stone masons.We've never got along too well with the French
so I suppose it was galling for many English Freemasons to recognise
a French order as the instigators of what became known as
Freemasonry.
[snip]
> The eye in a pyramid is a masonic symbol for the Goddess of Reason.
>Or perhaps just for reason and enlightenment in general, I'm not
sure.
Well it's strange that in my book written by two freemasons that they
claim that the eye in pyramid symbol is representative of of the
Egyptian God Amun-Re. Where did your claim come from?
--
Rob
Sirkku Piispanen
P.S.
I spell Sauron in finnish way [sauron] and I think it's pretty near to
true spelling.
-
Sirkku Piispanen
Sirkku.P...@sci.fi
Nothing makes sense when you think
about it long enough, so why not
just sit here and eat some good
chockolate. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Sirkku Piispanen
<jon...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>But it might have been a lizard's disembodied eye?
Where would he keep the Ring then?
And the fact that Sauron actually wrestled with Elendil and Gil-Galad.
I don't think that just an eye could manage too well. HEY! mayby that
was it! Good side won when Isildur poke Sauron in the eye...
grimgard
Prembone wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:49:45 -0500, grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Besides that, unless he had his eyelid pierced, he would have
> > to wear the Ring somewhere.
>
> Piercing wouldn't have been possible: It was a "lidless eye." ;-)
>
> "Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
> each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
>
> MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
> ~~~Woo-hoo!!!~~~
I expect pierced eyeballs to be all the rage of the new millenium. (which,
as we all know, starts on 1/1/2001, *NOT* 1/1/2000!)
grimgard
grimgard
> Do you think that peoples' experiences in reading RotK would have been
> substantially different if it had been entitled _The War of the Ring_
> have been different if they'd been published in six volumes (each with
> attached title) rather than three? A somewhat silly question, but
> interesting nonetheless. (I wonder if my mother would even be
> interested in reading a book with a title about a war...)
>
> Steuard Jensen
I think that the titles and/or divisions of the books may have had some
impact on whether or not I read the books in the first place. Several
friends tried to get me to read them, starting in my early high school
years, but that title, The Hobbit, kind of put me off. Then, when someone
told me that it involved Dwarves, Elves, Dragons and Trolls (as well as
Hobbits), I wrote it off altogether. It was seven or eight years later,
when I was laid up at home for a couple of weeks and desperate for reading
material, that I finally picked it up, along with the first books of the
Tarzan series and the Counter-Earth series. Once I'd read The Hobbit, of
course, I no longer cared about the titles or the chapter names or
anything of that sort. I just went out the next day (which I wasn't
supposed to do) and bought the other three books. It's been a passionate
love affair ever since.
grimgard
Douglas Henderson
Grammar school joke.
A husband is waiting in the waiting room at the maternity ward when the
doctor comes out with a worried look furrowing his brow.
What is it? Says the man
Well, says the doctor, your wife gave birth but there's good news and
bad news.
What's the good news says the man
your baby has no body, he's just a giant eye, says the doctor
O' Elbereth! cries the man, that's the GOOD news? What's the bad news?
He's blind, says the doctor.
--
Douglas Henderson
grimgard
Creole wrote:
Heh, "Who dares to draw sword against the Penis of Sauron?!?" Yes, this could get to be a very strange thread.
grimgard
William Quijada
Steuard Jensen
> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > So... what exactly does this have to do with the post of
> > Prembone's that you're responding to?
> I think there's been a sense of humour failure here somewhere. My post
> was a light hearted response to the strange subject heading not to
> Prembone's post. I didn't see any reason to change the subject heading
> considering that my post was about Lizards and Sauron.
I saw that you were responding to the subject line rather than to the
post, yes, and that your post was lighthearted and not serious.
However, my newsreader shows me articles in thread order, and the flow
of the thread is rather similar to a conversation (if a rather
sporadic one :) ). I was interested in the discussion that included
Prembone's post, so when I got to your article it was a rather
surprising non-sequitur. I'm afraid that a fair fraction of its humor
value (though not all of it) was lost on me due to the moments of
confusion before I realized that you weren't in fact replying to the
post that it looked like you were replying to.
My point was that it's generally easier for others to follow the
conversation if you make sure to reply to the right article. This is
particularly true when the subject of the discussion drifts away from
the subject line (as inevitably happens from time to time; this was a
good example). In this case, that would probably have meant replying
to the original article in the thread. Most newsreaders that I know
of make it relatively straightforward to go back a step or two in a
thread to get to an earlier article when that is necessary.
At any rate, I'm being a boring and pedantic enforcer of netiquette
here, so I'll stop. :) There are many things to talk about around
here that are a good bit more fun... like arguing about the proper
definition of "wings". :)
Steuard Jensen
Coverdale
> Quoth "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk>:
> > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > > So... what exactly does this have to do with the post of
> > > Prembone's that you're responding to?
>
> > I think there's been a sense of humour failure here somewhere. My
> > post was a light hearted response to the strange subject heading
> > not to Prembone's post. I didn't see any reason to change the
> >subject heading considering that my post was about Lizards an
> I saw that you were responding to the subject line rather than to
> the post, yes, and that your post was lighthearted and not serious.
> However, my newsreader shows me articles in thread order, and the
> flow of the thread is rather similar to a conversation (if a rather
> sporadic one :) ). I was interested in the discussion that included
> Prembone's post, so when I got to your article it was a rather
> surprising non-sequitur.
Sorry - I read posts in order sent, not by thread.
>I'm afraid that a fair fraction of its humor
> value (though not all of it) was lost on me due to the moments of
> confusion before I realized that you weren't in fact replying to the
> post that it looked like you were replying to.
It's humour value was low. I only put a few seconds into it.
> My point was that it's generally easier for others to follow the
> conversation if you make sure to reply to the right article. This
> is particularly true when the subject of the discussion drifts away
> from the subject line (as inevitably happens from time to time; this
> was a good example). In this case, that would probably have
> meant replying to the original article in the thread. Most
> newsreaders that I know of make it relatively straightforward to
> go back a step or two in a thread to get to an earlier article when
> that is necessary.
I didn't have the original article and couldn't be bothered to go back
on line to retrieve it.
> At any rate, I'm being a boring and pedantic enforcer of netiquette
> here, so I'll stop. :) There are many things to talk about around
> here that are a good bit more fun... like arguing about the proper
> definition of "wings". :)
My Oxford Dictionary:
Wing.
1) each of a pair of projecting parts by which a bird or insect is
able to fly.
[snip of other irrelevant definitions not applying to a creature]
It seems that in the case of Balrogs that you should be looking at
whether or not they could fly. If they couldn't fly then whatever
flappy things they may have had can't be called wings, according to
this definition applying to creatures.
--
Rob
Öjevind Lång
>Öjevind Lång wrote
>
>> That may be what the freemasons claim, but it is not really true. I
>>believe the symbol comes from the so-called "hermeneutic texts",
>>various occult, medical and religious texts written by Greeks in
>>Egypt in late antiquity, (3d and 4th centuries A. D.)
>
>No. The symbol predates 1500 BC. The Greeks likely just picked
> it up in Egypt.
Where was the symbol found at such an early date? Let me say at once that I
know a bit about Egyptian religion, and at no time did an eye in a pyramid
play a role in it. I'm not even sure it is expressly mentioned in the
hermeneutic texts, though those did play an important role as a source of
inspiration for various occultist movements from the late Middle Ages (14th
century) onwards. The symbol as such may have been manufactured by Masons
in the 18th century when Europeans had once more become aware of the
pyramids and were fascinated by them. On that point I'm not certain, though.
>>These occult writings were influential during the European middle
>>Ages and were apparently taken up by the masonic lodges, which
>>originally (from the14th century) were just guilds for English
>>bricklayers and stone-masons,
>
>Nope.This is incorrect. There are no records at all that medieval
>stone mason's "guilds" existed in England at this time.
Actually, they existed. The "lodge" was originally the word for the house
masons erected at a building site as a shelter against rain, for resting and
eating and so on.
Most
>stonemasons of the middle ages were illiterate and would have had
>little or no education beyond their craft. This makes it highly
>unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,
As I wrote in my previous post, during the 17th and 18th centuries, the
masonic lodges, which at that time included builders and other fairly
affluent people, began to accept members from the higher classes. It was
also at this time that they began to assimilate various occult stuff from
late Hellenistic pseudo-Egyptian manuscripts, as well as creating myths
about their origins. Before that they were just guilds, though the
stone-masons seem to have identified each other by secret signs. So did
chimney-sweeps in Sweden in the 19th century and other groups. It's no doubt
great fun.
which is
>traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher classes.
I don't really believe that the higher classes are more intelligent as a
group. More well read and articulate, perhaps. This is by the way.
>There is now a growing body of evidence that Freemasonry originated
>with the French Knights Templar order.
I would be interested in learning more about that. I find it highly
doubtful. I would not accept any "evidence" in the form of claims by
freemasons about their origins, any more than I have to accept the belief of
the Mormons that the Indians were the ten lost tribes of Israel.
[snip]
>> The eye in a pyramid is a masonic symbol for the Goddess of Reason.
>>Or perhaps just for reason and enlightenment in general, I'm not
>sure.
>
>Well it's strange that in my book written by two freemasons that they
>claim that the eye in pyramid symbol is representative of of the
>Egyptian God Amun-Re. Where did your claim come from?
My claim can be found in any book about mysticism during the 18th century.
To some freemasons, the symbol may stand for Amun-Re, but it definitely did
not for the ancient Egyptians. Surely you don't think that the American
Founding Fathers would have put a symbol for a pagan Egyptian God on their
currency? The Goddess or Spirit of Reason, however - that would have been
abstract enough for Thomas Jefferson, for example.
I don't believe the claims of freemasons any more than those of
fundamentalist Christians, if you take my meaning. With them it's not a
matter of facts but of faith.
Öjevind
abadonn
>was a light hearted response to the strange subject heading not to
>Prembone's post. I didn't see any reason to change the subject heading
>
>If you want a serious answer to the question - no Sauron was not a
>lizard.
Oh really ....please PROOF that Sauron wasn't a Lizard. If you can't
prove it then it aint true
(MM taught me this)
abadonn
Gordon Walker
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>My Oxford Dictionary:
>Wing.
>1) each of a pair of projecting parts by which a bird or insect is
>able to fly.
>
>[snip of other irrelevant definitions not applying to a creature]
>
>It seems that in the case of Balrogs that you should be looking at
>whether or not they could fly. If they couldn't fly then whatever
>flappy things they may have had can't be called wings, according to
>this definition applying to creatures.
Don't penguins have wings?
--
Gordon Walker
Andrea Wojtewicz
Gordon Walker <gor...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:382c0e59...@192.168.0.43...
And emus and ostriches?
Ron Ploeg
dara...@my-deja.com
be so; but I believe that in just about every contintental language,
Tolkien's pronunciations make sense and are pretty much how most of us
would have pronounced them spontaneousley. The only exception to that
rule I can think of as a Swedish-speaker is the hard "k" sound in
Celeborn, Celegorm and so on; a Swede would be likely to pronounce it
like "cedar" or "cement"."
Being a '1 language dude', I had never considered it that from the
'continental perspective' those names made sense and sounded good.
Unless...maybe you just made this all up and you're just sucking up to
Turin, huh, huh? He's no good I tell you, any lutefisk he touches
spoils. Just like that (snap fingers)!
Be careful,
Pool
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gordon Walker
Yes, but they're ... how can I put this? ... dead.
--
Gordon Walker
Ron Ploeg
Nonono! They're pining for the fjords! Look! It moved!
grimgard
> > here, so I'll stop. :) There are many things to talk about around
> > here that are a good bit more fun... like arguing about the proper
> > definition of "wings". :)
>
> Wing.
> 1) each of a pair of projecting parts by which a bird or insect is
> able to fly.
>
> [snip of other irrelevant definitions not applying to a creature]
>
> whether or not they could fly. If they couldn't fly then whatever
> flappy things they may have had can't be called wings, according to
> this definition applying to creatures.
> Rob
I expect the penguins will be sorry to hear that.
grimgard
grimgard
> Gordon Walker
Sheesh! Somebody always beats me to it. >-/
grimgard
Coverdale
> Don't penguins have wings?
Better take it up with the OUP Gordon not me.
--
Rob
Coverdale
> > Don't penguins have wings?
>
Better take it up with the OUP Andrea not me.
--
Rob
Coverdale
abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote :
> Oh really ....please PROOF that Sauron wasn't a Lizard. If you can't
> prove it then it aint true
>
> (MM taught me this)
You're probably one of those people who inhabits the philosophy groups
and insists upon constantly posting messages with headers like "PROVE
GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!"
--
Rob
Coverdale
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:nbVW3.1721$r_....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> Coverdale hath written:
> >No. The symbol predates 1500 BC. The Greeks likely just picked
> > it up in Egypt.
>
> Where was the symbol found at such an early date? Let me say at once
> that I know a bit about Egyptian religion, and at no time did an
eye in a
> pyramid play a role in it. I'm not even sure it is expressly
mentioned in
> the hermeneutic texts, though those did play an important role as a
> source of inspiration for various occultist movements from the late
Middle
> Ages (14th century) onwards. The symbol as such may have been
> manufactured by Masons in the 18th century when Europeans had once
> more become aware of the pyramids and were fascinated by them. On
> that point I'm not certain,though.
Ok lets say the origins of the symbolism are uncertain.
> >>These occult writings were influential during the European middle
> >>Ages and were apparently taken up by the masonic lodges, which
> >>originally (from the14th century) were just guilds for English
> >>bricklayers and stone-masons,
> >
> >Nope.This is incorrect. There are no records at all that medieval
> >stone mason's "guilds" existed in England at this time.
>
> Actually, they existed. The "lodge" was originally the word for the
> house masons erected at a building site as a shelter against rain,
>for resting and eating and so on.
NO they did not exist. There are no records of Freemasons "guilds" in
England at this time.They may well have had lodges at their place of
work but that's a totally different thing to a "guild" which is more
like a club. The word "lodgings" is still used these days to describe
a place of rest or "digs" if you like.
>> Most stonemasons of the middle ages were illiterate and would have
>>had little or no education beyond their craft. This makes it highly
>>unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,
> As I wrote in my previous post, during the 17th and 18th centuries,
> the masonic lodges, which at that time included builders and other
> fairly affluent people, began to accept members from the higher
classes.
Stonemasons would not have been affluent.
No, Freemasonry was founded by the upper classes. you don't seriously
think that the medieval equivalent of modern day house builders would
have started an esoteric secret society, a quasi - religion almost do
you ? That's not credible at all.
> I don't really believe that the higher classes are more intelligent
Middle and upper class people are generally much more intelligent than
working class people.
> >There is now a growing body of evidence that Freemasonry originated
> >with the French Knights Templar order.
>
> I would be interested in learning more about that. I find it highly
> doubtful.
Ok I'll present the evidence here in as concise a form as possible :
The full title of the Knights Templar included mention of the Temple
of Solomon.
It is known that the Templars spent much of their time in Jerusalem on
the site of King Solomons Temple.
There is no evidence of the Templars ever doing much in the way of
protecting Christain pilgrims, in fact they seem to have spent much of
their time digging tunnels under their lodgings looking for artefacts.
Freemasonry would seem to have an obssesion with the mysteries of
Solomon's Temple
The founder of the Knights Templar was Hugues de Payen, a French
nobleman.
Hugues de Payen was married to Catherine St Clair - a Scot.
The first Templar preceptory to be set up outside of the holy land was
on her family's land in Scotland.
Most of the Templars fled to Scotland after the collapse of their
order in the early fourteenth century due to the arrest and torture of
Jaques de Molay their leader.
The First Grand Master and founder of freemasonry was William St Clair
in the mid 15th century, a descendant of Catherine St Clair.
Looks pretty convincing to me.
> Surely you don't think that the American Founding Fathers would have
put a symbol for a pagan Egyptian God on their currency?
Why not ? - they were nearly all Freemasons and Masonic lodges are
apparently decorated with loads of symbols of this nature. Freemasons
only have to believe in a universal supreme being not in any
particular Religion. Freemasonry's dripping in pagan symbolism.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Arkady
> unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
> traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher classes.
I find that deeply offensive.
Arkady
abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:382e2c92...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:01:37 -0000, "Coverdale"
> <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I think there's been a sense of humour failure here somewhere. My post
> >was a light hearted response to the strange subject heading not to
> >Prembone's post. I didn't see any reason to change the subject heading
> >considering that my post was about Lizards and Sauron.
> >
> >If you want a serious answer to the question - no Sauron was not a
> >lizard.
>
> prove it then it aint true
>
> (MM taught me this)
*snigger*
Jereeza
Öjevind is right, when I read Tolkien's comments on pronouncing, I found out I'd been
speaking proper Elvish :), with the same exception Öje mentioned, only in Croatian 'c'
is pronounced like 'tz' in tzar, for instance.
--
[ Jereeza; http://www.angelfire.com/ri/jereeza/images/ ]
"All you have to do is crawl in the vent with it, find
your way through the maze and hope it's afraid of fire."
Jereeza
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:33:48 -0000, "Coverdale"
> <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Wing.
> >1) each of a pair of projecting parts by which a bird or insect is
> >able to fly.
> >
> >[snip of other irrelevant definitions not applying to a creature]
> >
> >It seems that in the case of Balrogs that you should be looking at
> >whether or not they could fly. If they couldn't fly then whatever
> >flappy things they may have had can't be called wings, according to
> >this definition applying to creatures.
>
Those are not wings, they're just ... appendages :P
Steuard Jensen
> Tell the OUP.
I'm more tha a little confused. What's the OUP?
Steuard Jensen
Jon
> Steuard Jensen
'Oxford University Press'
Possibly.
Jon.
--
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/fairport/fc.html
Home of the Fairport Convention mailing list FAQs
inkliing
time...
>> That may be what the freemasons claim, but it is not really true. I
>>believe the symbol comes from the so-called "hermeneutic texts",
>>various occult, medical and religious texts written by Greeks in
>>Egypt in late antiquity, (3d and 4th centuries A. D.)
>
>No. The symbol predates 1500 BC. The Greeks likely just picked
> it up in Egypt.
>
can you gaive any specific examples of this symbol in easrly egyptian culture
(c. 1500BC)?
O.L.
the softrat
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Quoth "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk>:
>> Tell the OUP.
>
>I'm more tha a little confused. What's the OUP?
>
Try 'Oxford University Press'. Like any other publisher, they want
money, so they will print anything, especially in these latter days of
failing scholarship and integrity.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
Alatar
Arkady wrote in message ...
in logic.
But mostly it's offensive.
--
Alatar
Coverdale
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ATZW3.13459$bp3.6...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >This makes it highly
> > unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
> > traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher
> >classes.
> I find that deeply offensive.
>
Well I'm sorry but it's true. Working class people are generally less
intelligent than middle or upper class people. That's just the way it
is. Who'd do all the crud jobs if everyone was intelligent? - it's
just nature's way of balancing out society to ensure that all
essential needs can be fulfilled.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80iak2$l60$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Coverdale wrote:
> > > This makes it highly
> > > unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
> > > traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher
> > >classes.
> >
> > I find that deeply offensive.
> I find it deeply offensive, unbelieveably ill informed and totally
> lacking in logic.
>
> But mostly it's offensive.
But generally true. If the working class are so intelligent then why
are they doing working class jobs? Why aren't they university
lecturers or scientists etc?
Don't bother with one off exceptions to the rule because I'm talking
about society as a whole.
I can't believe that people can seriously believe that a secret
society which is today the exclusive domain of the middle and upper
classes was started by illiterate, uneducated, medieval construction
workers. I expect they were only interested in the medieval equivalent
of birds, booze and football not in religion, myth, esoteric knowledge
etc.
Anyway Freemasonry was started by "speculative" masons (upper class)
who probably passed some of it's secrets on to actual stone masons
when employing them in the construction of chapels like that of
Rosslyn in Scotland built by William St Clair - the founder of
Freemasonry.
--
Rob
Coverdale
inkliing <inkliin...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:80i7ig$2j...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >No. The symbol predates 1500 BC. The Greeks likely just picked
> > it up in Egypt.
> can you give any specific examples of this symbol in easrly
> egyptian culture (c. 1500BC)?
Yes if you pay for the trip to Egypt to see it carved on the tomb
walls....
No seriously, I actually think now that the eye is intended to be the
eye of Horus and that the symbol is probably a Masonic invention.
--
Rob
Jonas Thorell
Coverdale wrote:
> But generally true. If the working class are so intelligent then why
> are they doing working class jobs? Why aren't they university
> lecturers or scientists etc?
Because they can't afford the cost of the studies to get that
far?
/Jonas
Öjevind Lång
accept that they had any kind of connection with genuine Old Ehyptian
religion, and I still say it seems quite clear that the fraeemasonic lodges
originated as guilds for bricklayers,stonemasons and the like. I have just
one additional comment to make:
Coverdale hath written:
[snip]:
There is no evidence of the Templars ever doing much in the way of
>protecting Christain pilgrims, in fact they seem to have spent much of
>their time digging tunnels under their lodgings looking for artefacts.
I'm sorry, but this simply is not true. The Knights Templars and their
colleagues, the Knights Hospitaliers (or the Order of the Hospital of St
John in Jerusalem), were very active protecting pilgrims against attackers,
and not least in fighting in all Crusades and wars against the Muslims. They
were well-known for their fanatical courage.
Öjevind
Prembone
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> You could have added that an Italian would spontaneously pronounce
>Celeborn as "Cheleborn", and so on; but I still think that the
>pronounciations would seem more natural, as it were, to most continentals
>than to English-speakers.
Before I looked in the appendices or wherever the heck T gives the
pronunciation, I always pronounced "Celeborn" with a soft "c" sound
(i.e., an "s" sound) at the beginning, as in "celibate."
Hmmmm...given who we're talking about, maybe I wasn't so far off the
mark. ;-)
"And I hope my Sam's behaved hisself and given satisfaction?"
"Perfect satisfaction, Mr. Gamgee," said Frodo.
MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
~~~Where the Tildeful People go~~~
Prembone
[snipping too many people to sort out]
>> >And Kentucky Fried Chicken's?
>
>>
>> Yes, but they're ... how can I put this? ... dead.
>
>
>Nonono! They're pining for the fjords! Look! It moved!
Come visit the famous fjords of Kentucky....
Prembone
Meltzer) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:01:37 -0000, "Coverdale"
><cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>If you want a serious answer to the question - no Sauron was not a
>>lizard.
>
>Actually, Sauron was a pussycat. :-)
No, actually, Sauron was a bullfrog. He was a good friend of mine. I
never understood a single word he said, but I always helped him drink
his wine. And he always had some mighty fine wine.
Prembone
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Quoth "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk>:
>> What the hecks wrong with lizards?
>[snip more about lizards]
>
>So... what exactly does this have to do with the post of Prembone's
>that you're responding to?
Nothing. Non sequiturs are a way of life on the Internet. ;-)
But I was bummed to see how little impact my profound insight about
Sauron and eyelid-piercing had upon this group. Sigh. What'll I do
tonight? The same thing I do every night: Try to take over the
world.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:80jku1$1mao$4...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> But generally true. If the working class are so intelligent then
> why are they doing working class jobs? Why aren't they university
> lecturers or scientists etc?
There are two fairly obvious answers;
1: Because some of them LIKE doing 'working class' jobs or can make
more money at it.
2: Because some of them don't have the education to be 'university
lecturers or scientists' - which is a completely different thing
than not having the intelligence.
For that matter, I've met plenty of 'white collar' workers who
weren't all that bright. This idea of a 'class based' intelligence
gap flies in the face of observable reality - and would seem to be
even more unlikely in a 'medieval' environment where social standing
was even more closely tied to the circumstances one was born into.
If Einstein had been born a serf would he have been less
intelligent?
Alatar
Coverdale wrote:
>Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:80iak2$l60$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> > Coverdale wrote:
>> > > This makes it highly
>> > > unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
>> > > traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher
>> > >classes.
>> >
>> > I find that deeply offensive.
>
>> I find it deeply offensive, unbelieveably ill informed and totally
>> lacking in logic.
>>
>> But mostly it's offensive.
>
>are they doing working class jobs?
Very often because they trained for that job, want that job, or can't afford
to get the qualifications to get a different job. "working class jobs" are
often not "low-intelligence" jobs. It takes a lot of brains to be a good
electrician, for example.
>Why aren't they university lecturers or scientists etc?
They are. That is why I called your comment "unbelieveably ill informed".
Working class people are less likely to go to university because of a lack
of MONEY, not a lack of intelligence.
>Don't bother with one off exceptions to the rule because I'm talking
>about society as a whole.
>
Me too
<snip free mason stuff>
I'm not interested in that issue. It's your amazingly shallow ideas of the
working class that is offensive. Please keep such opinions out of
discussions in this newsgroup.
--
Alatar
Alatar
Coverdale wrote:
>Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ATZW3.13459$bp3.6...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>> > unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
>> > traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher
>> >classes.
>
>> I find that deeply offensive.
>>
>
>intelligent than middle or upper class people.
There is absolutly no basis for that assumption. If you don't believe me I
suggest you contact an authority on the subject. May I suggest Mensa.
>That's just the way it
>is. Who'd do all the crud jobs if everyone was intelligent?
There are plenty of people with degrees doing working class jobs entirely by
choice. You really don't have a clue about the difference between
intelligence, job preference and job opportunities, do you?
> it's just nature's way of balancing out society to ensure that all
>essential needs can be fulfilled.
LOL! If you believe that class has ANYTHING to do with inelligence you must
be living in a cave with your fingers in you ears and your eyes shut tight.
--
Alatar
Coverdale
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote :
Coverdale wrote originally:
> >There is no evidence of the Templars ever doing much in the way of
> >protecting Christain pilgrims, in fact they seem to have spent much
> >of their time digging tunnels under their lodgings looking for
> >artefacts.
> I'm sorry, but this simply is not true.
Err...well considering that neither of us were actually there.....
> The Knights Templars and their colleagues, the Knights Hospitaliers
> (or the Order of the Hospital of St John in Jerusalem), were very
> active protecting pilgrims against attackers, and not least in
>fighting in all Crusades and wars against the Muslims. They were
> well-known for their fanatical courage.
OK so they went out and about a little but....
There were only nine Knights Templar in Jerusalem for the first nine
years before they began to expand their order. Hardly a fearsome
prospect for a few hundred fanatical Muslims to overpower.
Quote from French historian Gaetan Delaforge:
"The real task of the nine Knights was to carry out research in the
area in order to obtain certain relics and manuscripts which contain
the essence of the secret traditions of Judaism and Ancient Egypt
, some of which probably went back to the days of Moses"
Hence the strong Freemasonry connection.
I believe that after they expanded their order the new recruits did
actually spend more time on the roads of the holy land protecting
pilgrims.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Jonas Thorell <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote :
> Coverdale wrote originally:
>>But generally true. If the working class are so intelligent
>>then why are they doing working class jobs? Why aren't they
>> university lecturers or scientists etc?
>
> Because they can't afford the cost of the studies to get that
> far?
That may be true now in the UK since the Labour government abolished
student grants but it wouldn't have been the case before. Before the
government axed student grants each student received around £2500 per
year and had access to an equal amount in the form of a minimal
interest loan so everyone regardless of social background could afford
higher education (so long as they didn't blow their grant on drink and
drugs).
I think some people mistook my original remark. I wasn't referring to
upper class people. I meant that across the social spectrum you will
generally find that middle and (many) upper class people have a higher
IQ than the manual working class. For example if they did IQ tests on
a cross section of society in two groups - manual workers in one and a
proportionate group of middle class white collar workers and upper
class in the other, then I'm sure the latter group would come out on
top. I fail to see how anyone can argue with that -it's just common
sense.
Anyone who takes offence at a claim like that is living in cloud
cuckoo land and refuses to admit the obvious.
--
Rob
Jonas Thorell
Coverdale wrote:
>> Because they can't afford the cost of the studies to get that
>> far?
> That may be true now in the UK since the Labour government abolished
> student grants but it wouldn't have been the case before. Before the
> government axed student grants each student received around £2500 per
> year and had access to an equal amount in the form of a minimal
> interest loan so everyone regardless of social background could afford
> higher education (so long as they didn't blow their grant on drink and
> drugs).
I don't know how much rent/food/student literature etc costs in
the UK so...given the £2500 which turns out to be slightly more
than £50 - how much is that? I know that if I recalculate that
to my currency, I wouldn't be able to live on that. ONE book
can cost that much (£50 that is). I couldn't afford to eat that
week. With the loan, maybe (what was the minimal interest BTW?)
And I personally know people who has dropped out of University
because they couldn't afford it. Not in the UK though.
> I think some people mistook my original remark. I wasn't referring to
> upper class people. I meant that across the social spectrum you will
> generally find that middle and (many) upper class people have a higher
> IQ than the manual working class.
That's not strange. Intelligence is both inherited and something you've
gained over the years but it can also regress. Now, whose intelligence
is most likely to regress - one with a dull, repetitive job or one
with an intellectual challenging job?
> For example if they did IQ tests on
> a cross section of society in two groups - manual workers in one and a
> proportionate group of middle class white collar workers and upper
> class in the other, then I'm sure the latter group would come out on
> top.
I agree, only that the typical IQ test doesn't tell one iota how
intelligent you are. It measures only some aspects of intelligence.
If you get a low score on a IQ test doesn't mean you're less
intelligent that one that gets a high one. It just means that the
test tested the areas you are less apt at. Or that you gets stressed
during tests and therefore fail to do your best.
/Jonas
Coverdale
>
> Coverdale wrote:
> >Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:80iak2$l60$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> > Coverdale wrote:
> >> > > unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
> >> > > traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher
> >> > >classes.
> >> >
> >> > I find that deeply offensive.
> >
totally
> >> lacking in logic.
> >>
> >> But mostly it's offensive.
> >
why
> >are they doing working class jobs?
>
can't afford
> to get the qualifications to get a different job. "working class
jobs" are
> often not "low-intelligence" jobs. It takes a lot of brains to be a
good
> electrician, for example.
Oh do me a favour for christs sake...
> >Why aren't they university lecturers or scientists etc?
>
> They are. That is why I called your comment "unbelieveably ill
informed".
> Working class people are less likely to go to university because of
a lack
> of MONEY, not a lack of intelligence.
(Deep sigh)
YES some of them are but I'll bet the percentage of lecturers and
scientists
from a middle class background is much higher.
Anyway lack of money has only been an issue in the past couple of
years
since grants were abolished. It wouldn't have been a big problem
before.
> I'm not interested in that issue. It's your amazingly shallow ideas
of the
> working class that is offensive.
LOOK *you're* twisting my statements. Yes there are intelligent
working
class people but I'm talking about society as a whole.
> Please keep such opinions out of discussions in this newsgroup.
They're facts of life not opinions dear.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:80k9mr$a79$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:80jku1$1mao$4...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>
> > lecturers or scientists etc?
>
> There are two fairly obvious answers;
>
> 1: Because some of them LIKE doing 'working class' jobs or can
> make more money at it.
Some maybe but not on the big scale.
> 2: Because some of them don't have the education to be 'university
> lecturers or scientists' - which is a completely different thing
> than not having the intelligence.
They don't have the education because they haven't got the
intelligence to be able to pass a university degree.
> For that matter, I've met plenty of 'white collar' workers who
> weren't all that bright. This idea of a 'class based' intelligence
> gap flies in the face of observable reality
No that simply is not true, not on the big scale.
Society needs less intelligent people to balance out.
Less intelligent people are the manual working class.
Stop arguing with me for the hell of it.
--
Rob
Coverdale
>
> Coverdale wrote:
> >Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ATZW3.13459$bp3.6...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >> > unlikely that they were the founders of Freemasonry,which is
> >> > traditionally associated with the (more intelligent) higher
> >> >classes.
> >
> >> I find that deeply offensive.
> >>
> >
> > less intelligent than middle or upper class people.
> There is absolutly no basis for that assumption.
Yes there is a basis for it. Society needs less intelligent people.
> >That's just the way it
> >is. Who'd do all the crud jobs if everyone was intelligent?
>
> There are plenty of people with degrees doing working class jobs
>entirely by choice. You really don't have a clue about the difference
>between intelligence, job preference and job opportunities, do you?
Get your head out of the clouds dear and take a look at the real
world. You're the one who hasn't got a clue.
> > it's just nature's way of balancing out society to ensure that all
> >essential needs can be fulfilled.
>
>LOL! If you believe that class has ANYTHING to do with
>inelligence you must be living in a cave with your fingers in you
>ears and your eyes shut tight.
Stop shouting . It isn't that class has to do with intelligence. It's
the other way round - your intelligence determines your class in
general (not with upper class though) Unintelligent members of
society cannot achieve the academic levels to secure good
jobs requiring a higher level of intelligence and so therefore they
are more likely to become manual workers. Thats a fact.
I've got nothing at all against working class people - many of my
friends are and they're great guys I get along fine with them. Some
of them would probably not bother at all about admitting that I'm
more intelligent than them.Someof them are probably better at sport
than me but it doesn't bother me at all. I wouldn't get all uptight
about it if someone stated that working class people are generally
better at sport than middle class people.
--
Rob
Alatar
>>>then why are they doing working class jobs? Why aren't they
>>> university lecturers or scientists etc?
>>
>> far?
>
>That may be true now in the UK since the Labour government abolished
>student grants but it wouldn't have been the case before. Before the
>government axed student grants each student received around £2500 per
>year and had access to an equal amount in the form of a minimal
>interest loan so everyone regardless of social background could afford
>higher education (so long as they didn't blow their grant on drink and
>drugs).
That was the theory. However, the two years of of studying for A-levels on
about £12 per week that you have to go through before you can even apply for
university can be a major problem for working class families.
>I think some people mistook my original remark. I wasn't referring to
>upper class people. I meant that across the social spectrum you will
>generally find that middle and (many) upper class people have a higher
>IQ than the manual working class.
That is incorrect though
>For example if they did IQ tests on
>a cross section of society in two groups - manual workers in one and a
>proportionate group of middle class white collar workers and upper
>class in the other, then I'm sure the latter group would come out on
>top.
It wouldn't
>I fail to see how anyone can argue with that -it's just common
>sense.
I'm not relying on common sense. I'm using proven facts instead. Sometimes
reality is different from what you expect to make sense.
>Anyone who takes offence at a claim like that is living in cloud
>cuckoo land and refuses to admit the obvious.
British Mensa Limited
Mensa House
St John's Square
Wolverhampton
WV2 4AH
You should ask them about the distribution of intelligence throughout
society before you decide who is living in cloud cookoo land.
--
Alatar
Coverdale
> I'm not relying on common sense. I'm using proven facts instead.
>Sometimes reality is different from what you expect to make sense.
IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence. Some of them are
actually ridiculously easy. I think a better definition of
intelligence is the kind of things that people take an interest in.
How many factory workers read books on history, science, philosophy
etc ? I'll bet a very small percentage. It's the birds, booze and
football thing isn't it?, with many of them anyway.
On the other side of the coin how many bank managers go to football
matches? I'll bet a very small percentage - they've got interests in
more cultured things.
Ok so that's a narrow example but I suspect you know what I'm saying.
I don't doubt that factory workers could score as high as bank
managers in most IQ tests and that would probably be backed up by
stats from Mensa, but like I said - they're not what I look to for a
definition of someone's intelligence. You have to look much deeper
than that to peoples knowledge of, and interest in, cultured things
like those I mentioned earlier. Even to peoples way of conducting
themselves - their manner of speech and general social behaviour.
Intelligence is not the same as an IQ test score in my opinion.
Therefore I stick by what I said in the first place.
--
Rob
Flame of the West
> No, actually, Sauron was a bullfrog. He was a good friend of mine. I
> never understood a single word he said, but I always helped him drink
> his wine. And he always had some mighty fine wine.
NOW you're talking! Put away that Elton stuff and break out the
3 Dog Night! BTW, anyone hear Agent Scully trying to sing that
on X-Files?
--
-- FotW
"Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes."
JRR Tolkien
D. Henderson
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> drawled superciliously
><Alatar blabbed (regarding intelligence)
On the other hand, there are plenty of college-educated non-factory
workers who could not pour piss out of a boot even if the instructions
were written on the heel.
--
\/ \/ \/ \/
Sindamor Pandaturion
Jonas Thorell
Coverdale wrote:
>> 1: Because some of them LIKE doing 'working class' jobs or can
>> make more money at it.
> Some maybe but not on the big scale.
Funny, because most people I know of that could be classified as
"working class" is more than content with it. Electricians,
carpenters, car-mechanics etc. They don't have a university-degree
but their jobs are not less qualified because of that. And they like
what they are doing but don't always like the amount they're being
paid for it.
But as for salaries...I don't have a university degree and don't plan
on getting one soon either. Why should I if it was only for the
pay-check? I earn more than I need already and the drawback of
having to pay of loans for many years to come outweighs my "need"
to have a diploma to brag about. Besides - if a future employer
was only interested to see what university degree I had without
paying attention to, for instance, experience he would limit his
candidate-base considerably.
>> 2: Because some of them don't have the education to be 'university
>> lecturers or scientists' - which is a completely different thing
>> than not having the intelligence.
> They don't have the education because they haven't got the
> intelligence to be able to pass a university degree.
Just about everyone has the intelligence required for that.
Not everyone has the dedication, money and willpower
to do it though. Or a sufficient clear idea of what they
really want to work with for that matter.
> No that simply is not true, not on the big scale.
> Society needs less intelligent people to balance out.
> Less intelligent people are the manual working class.
Certainly not. It's just that an electrician needs
intelligence in other areas than a neuro-surgeon.
> Stop arguing with me for the hell of it.
When you show something that is in the vicinicity of
reality. It doesn't have to be bulls-eye but within a
lightyear or so would do.
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
Coverdale wrote:
>> There are plenty of people with degrees doing working class jobs
>>entirely by choice. You really don't have a clue about the difference
>>between intelligence, job preference and job opportunities, do you?
> Get your head out of the clouds dear and take a look at the real
> world. You're the one who hasn't got a clue.
The real world? The one where there are actually people working
as gardeners because that is what they want to do? The one where
(atleast in my country) where some alternatives in University
becomes less and less popular because the pay isn't up
to par, becoming a teacher for instance is less popular than it
used to be because of that. The one where the job-market is
over-heated in certain branches so it's next to impossible to
get a job no matter what your qualifiactions are unless you
happen to be 25 years of age with grown up children and have
3 university degrees. Exaggerated to the extreme but I think
you get the picture.
> I've got nothing at all against working class people - many of my
> friends are and they're great guys I get along fine with them.
Just a hint: if you want them to stay on friendly terms with you:
avoid this discussion with them.
/Jonas