"Look" related to "lux"?
Harlan Messinger
Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Arthur Wang
news:avu1qu02gfpfi004d...@4ax.com:
> Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
> Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
>
But why do you believe "look" goes back to that root? The idea never
occurred to me, but to my belief it does not. However, I recommend OED for
that information.
--
Arthur Wang arthu...@163.com
Jacques Guy
>
> Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
> Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
Actually, it's related to Chinese lu3 (three-point water on the
left, "salt" on the right) "halogen". Halogen > light > look,
a natural enough semantic shift. Oh, via Maya of course! (Whew,
I nearly forgot mentioning Maya. Must be more careful with my
posts in the future).
mike
news:Xns92A0799A084ECa...@61.132.102.253:
conceptually, the thing which is looked at presents itself to the viewer,
as does light present itself to the viewer. if there were a connection
between "light" and "look", it might stem from this. our notion of our mind
creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
perhaps "look" was originally a technical term, like "coordinate the
visable with our expectation" - a stratigic term?
but, an interesting thing is the word "leuk", meaning "bright" or
"white"... remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate
from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
surely this is much more difficult a question than it appears at first to
be, and cannot be solved simply by looking at word lists compiled from
literary works, works which often intentionally avoided local usages -- and
certain subjects: one finds very few references to "blowjobs while wearing
leather jockstraps" in the early chronicles and religious texts of the
european languages.
Brian M. Scott
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
>Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
Presumably not: <lux> goes back to PIE */leuk-/, which would not
have /k/ in Germanic.
Brian
benlizross
>
> Arthur Wang <arthu...@163.com> wrote in
> news:Xns92A0799A084ECa...@61.132.102.253:
>
> > Harlan Messinger <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
> > news:avu1qu02gfpfi004d...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
> >> Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
> >>
> >
> > But why do you believe "look" goes back to that root? The idea never
> > occurred to me, but to my belief it does not. However, I recommend OED
> > for that information.
> >
>
> conceptually, the thing which is looked at presents itself to the viewer,
> as does light present itself to the viewer. if there were a connection
> between "light" and "look", it might stem from this. our notion of our mind
> creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
Who is "we"?
What is "modern"?
And how do you know this?
> perhaps "look" was originally a technical term, like "coordinate the
> visable with our expectation" - a stratigic term?
>
> but, an interesting thing is the word "leuk", meaning "bright" or
> "white"... remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate
> from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
Who is "we"?
How do you know when "we" got this idea?
How do you know "we" have it now?
> surely this is much more difficult a question than it appears at first to
> be, and cannot be solved simply by looking at word lists compiled from
> literary works, works which often intentionally avoided local usages -- and
> certain subjects: one finds very few references to "blowjobs while wearing
> leather jockstraps" in the early chronicles and religious texts of the
> european languages.
And you figure "essential brightnesses" is one of these forbidden
subjects?
Ross Clark
mike
> mike wrote:
>>
>> Arthur Wang <arthu...@163.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns92A0799A084ECa...@61.132.102.253:
>>
>> > Harlan Messinger <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> > news:avu1qu02gfpfi004d...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"?
>> >> Neither Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old
>> >> English "locian".
>> >>
>> >
>> > But why do you believe "look" goes back to that root? The idea never
>> > occurred to me, but to my belief it does not. However, I recommend
>> > OED for that information.
>> >
>>
>> conceptually, the thing which is looked at presents itself to the
>> viewer, as does light present itself to the viewer. if there were a
>> connection between "light" and "look", it might stem from this. our
>> notion of our mind creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
>
> Who is "we"?
> What is "modern"?
> And how do you know this?
gotta art history degree along the way. a good art history teacher will
suggest to you that you might not be seeing an art work in the way it was
intended to be seen.
>
>> perhaps "look" was originally a technical term, like "coordinate the
>> visable with our expectation" - a stratigic term?
>>
>> but, an interesting thing is the word "leuk", meaning "bright" or
>> "white"... remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being
>> separate from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
>
> Who is "we"?
> How do you know when "we" got this idea?
> How do you know "we" have it now?
how do you know that you understand what i'm talking about?
>
>> surely this is much more difficult a question than it appears at first
>> to be, and cannot be solved simply by looking at word lists compiled
>> from literary works, works which often intentionally avoided local
>> usages -- and certain subjects: one finds very few references to
>> "blowjobs while wearing leather jockstraps" in the early chronicles
>> and religious texts of the european languages.
>
> And you figure "essential brightnesses" is one of these forbidden
> subjects?
>
> Ross Clark
>
you missed the hint that something like an "old-timey" word, maybe one
involving luke and light, might have been pointedly ignored because it was
vulgar. have you ever heard a Russian Orthodox sermon on the nature of
light? it's suggestive for this discussion -- what we call "lucifer".
mike
@enews.newsguy.com:
why are you assuming that english is only germanic? what if the word was
borrowed? or, maybe you think that "cht" isn't a 'k' sound? anyway,
"light" is first a religious word, then an object of nature.
PIE is obviously hypothetical, so why exclude other hypothetical solutions?
benlizross
>
> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in news:3DA12C...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> > mike wrote:
> >>
> >> Arthur Wang <arthu...@163.com> wrote in
> >> news:Xns92A0799A084ECa...@61.132.102.253:
> >>
> >> > Harlan Messinger <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> > news:avu1qu02gfpfi004d...@4ax.com:
> >> >
> >> >> Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"?
> >> >> Neither Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old
> >> >> English "locian".
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > But why do you believe "look" goes back to that root? The idea never
> >> > occurred to me, but to my belief it does not. However, I recommend
> >> > OED for that information.
> >> >
> >>
> >> conceptually, the thing which is looked at presents itself to the
> >> viewer, as does light present itself to the viewer. if there were a
> >> connection between "light" and "look", it might stem from this. our
> >> notion of our mind creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
> >
> > Who is "we"?
> > What is "modern"?
> > And how do you know this?
>
> gotta art history degree along the way. a good art history teacher will
> suggest to you that you might not be seeing an art work in the way it was
> intended to be seen.
Still not up to answers, I see.
>
> >
> >> perhaps "look" was originally a technical term, like "coordinate the
> >> visable with our expectation" - a stratigic term?
> >>
> >> but, an interesting thing is the word "leuk", meaning "bright" or
> >> "white"... remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being
> >> separate from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
> >
> > Who is "we"?
> > How do you know when "we" got this idea?
> > How do you know "we" have it now?
>
> how do you know that you understand what i'm talking about?
I know that I don't. That's why I'm asking you questions.
> >
> >> surely this is much more difficult a question than it appears at first
> >> to be, and cannot be solved simply by looking at word lists compiled
> >> from literary works, works which often intentionally avoided local
> >> usages -- and certain subjects: one finds very few references to
> >> "blowjobs while wearing leather jockstraps" in the early chronicles
> >> and religious texts of the european languages.
> >
> > And you figure "essential brightnesses" is one of these forbidden
> > subjects?
> >
> > Ross Clark
> >
>
> you missed the hint that something like an "old-timey" word, maybe one
> involving luke and light, might have been pointedly ignored because it was
> vulgar.
I didn't miss the hint. I'm looking for more than hints.
have you ever heard a Russian Orthodox sermon on the nature of
> light? it's suggestive for this discussion -- what we call "lucifer".
So instead of answers it's (i) get an art history degree; (ii) go to
your local Russian Orthodox church. Thanks, mike.
And by the way, who's that last "we"?
Ross Clark
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:avu1qu02gfpfi004d...@4ax.com:
>
>> Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
>> Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
>>
>
>But why do you believe "look" goes back to that root?
I expressed no belief in this regard, I merely asked a question. My
reason for asking the question was that I came across "¡Luzca bien!" =
"Look good!" in a Spanish ad the other day and wondered whether
"look", "lucer" could be added to my collection of false cognates. But
my dictionaries just didn't take "look" back far enough to tell.
>The idea never
>occurred to me, but to my belief it does not. However, I recommend OED for
>that information.
--
Harlan Messinger
Thanks!
Wolf Kirchmeir
>why are you assuming that english is only germanic? what if the word was
>borrowed? or, maybe you think that "cht" isn't a 'k' sound? anyway,
>"light" is first a religious word, then an object of nature.
the word in question is "look." It has cognates in German. Eg, in my own
Austrian dialect, we have "luag'n", to look (at), to stare. Eg, "Da hat'a
aber g'luagt" -- "He sure started looking then."
HTH
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
You can observe a lot by watching
(Yogi Berra, Phil. Em.)
..................................................................
Harlan Messinger
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@guess.where> wrote in message
news:3DA1F9...@guess.where...
Méchant. I'm on *your* side! I was hoping this would be another pair of
visually similar, semantically similar, yet demonstrably unrelated words
from demonstrably *closely related* languages for my collection.
mike
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbp...@news1.sympatico.ca:
you can oberve alot by watching, it's true. the concept is that the word
had an origin, and that rationalist thinking, the structuring of the
world as a ratio between yourself and its objects, wasn't the first
thinking. i like rationalist thinking. people who think that every event
is a personal sign and message aren't thinking rationally. the encounter
with some bright event, lightning, say, gives a different "light" than
the glow of dawn, a different kind of light from the midday sun. these
illuminations were essential. there was no "look", the way you use it
when you cross the street. there was some visual integration, but it
wasn't controlled by you yourself.
the concept is that an object "reflects" or "glows" at us, "brights" at
us.
Brian M. Scott
in news:jbysxveflzcngvpbp...@news1.sympatico.ca
in sci.lang:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:04:29 GMT, mike wrote:
>>why are you assuming that english is only germanic? what if
>>the word was borrowed? or, maybe you think that "cht" isn't
>>a 'k' sound? anyway, "light" is first a religious word,
>>then an object of nature.
> the word in question is "look." It has cognates in German.
> Eg, in my own Austrian dialect, we have "luag'n", to look
> (at), to stare. Eg, "Da hat'a aber g'luagt" -- "He sure
> started looking then."
Looks like a survival of MHG <luogen>, OHG <luogên>; does it
exist in the standard language? OED2 also mentions OSax <lôcon>
and MDu <loeken>, and the English is from OE <locian>.
Brian
mike
that was an answer.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> perhaps "look" was originally a technical term, like "coordinate
>> >> the visable with our expectation" - a stratigic term?
>> >>
>> >> but, an interesting thing is the word "leuk", meaning "bright" or
>> >> "white"... remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being
>> >> separate from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
>> >
>> > Who is "we"?
>> > How do you know when "we" got this idea?
>> > How do you know "we" have it now?
>>
>> how do you know that you understand what i'm talking about?
>
> I know that I don't. That's why I'm asking you questions.
this was a question about method, not about what you had for breakfast.
this isn't about you, dross.
>
>> >
>> >> surely this is much more difficult a question than it appears at
>> >> first to be, and cannot be solved simply by looking at word lists
>> >> compiled from literary works, works which often intentionally
>> >> avoided local usages -- and certain subjects: one finds very few
>> >> references to "blowjobs while wearing leather jockstraps" in the
>> >> early chronicles and religious texts of the european languages.
>> >
>> > And you figure "essential brightnesses" is one of these forbidden
>> > subjects?
>> >
>> > Ross Clark
>> >
>>
>> you missed the hint that something like an "old-timey" word, maybe one
>> involving luke and light, might have been pointedly ignored because it
>> was vulgar.
>
> I didn't miss the hint. I'm looking for more than hints.
what in the world isn't a pointer to the concept?
>
> have you ever heard a Russian Orthodox sermon on the nature of
>> light? it's suggestive for this discussion -- what we call "lucifer".
>
> So instead of answers it's (i) get an art history degree; (ii) go to
> your local Russian Orthodox church. Thanks, mike.
again, the answer was given.
>
> And by the way, who's that last "we"?
>
> Ross Clark
i thought you were involved in language?
>
Christian Weisgerber
> > the word in question is "look." It has cognates in German.
> > Eg, in my own Austrian dialect, we have "luag'n", to look
> > (at), to stare. Eg, "Da hat'a aber g'luagt" -- "He sure
> > started looking then."
>
> Looks like a survival of MHG <luogen>, OHG <luogên>; does it
> exist in the standard language?
"lugen"
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Margaret Mikulska
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Actually, it's related to Chinese lu3 (three-point water on the
> left, "salt" on the right) "halogen". Halogen > light > look,
> a natural enough semantic shift. Oh, via Maya of course! (Whew,
> I nearly forgot mentioning Maya. Must be more careful with my
> posts in the future).
You forget Basque. Everything is somehow related to Basque.
-Margaret
--
mikulska at silvertone dot princeton dot edu
benlizross
You've mentioned this light/vision thing several times in discussions
here, and I wondered how you would support it if challenged to go beyond
mere re-assertion. I have my answer: standard mike bluff and bullshit.
Thankx.
Ross Clark
benlizross
It's not the concept that's difficult to get, mike. It's your assertions
about its history -- "in the past people thought this way, then in the
middle ages things changed...etc." How do you know?
Ross Clark
mike
yah, like "girl" in sumarian. she has a white dress on, and there isn't a
day gone by when i don't...
> It's your assertions
> about its history -- "in the past people thought this way, then in the
> middle ages things changed...etc." How do you know?
ask yer mom.
>
> Ross Clark
>
i'm only proposing an hypothesis. for a language person, it's a suggestive
hypothesis. if all it suggested to you was that you were being dissed, then
that's all you're going to get from it.
mike
John Smith
"benlizross" is after insights and "mike" is only after posing and
bullshit.
An outside opinion.
\\P. Schultz
mike
@company.com:
i'd say you'd got the inner opinion. dross is trying to force a simplistic
view of language study as an engineering adventure, with adventure
engineers as heros. i'm trying to find what it is that makes language so
much more interesting than, say computer programming instructions
(something which i write).
the topic of the exchange is whether the word "look" can be understood as a
look-up item in a structured inventory, or whether it has many different
and concurrent meanings in actual usage. you seem to be some sort of
thought police, so perhaps you could tell me where to get a license to
speak to dross in a way he'd accept?
benlizross
don't go fuck yourself.
benlizross
no, no dissing for a change. but your "suggestive hypothesis" came in
forms like
our notion of our mind
creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
and
remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate
from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
This doesn't read like somebody saying "maybe" or "what if?" or
"imagine". This sounds like somebody telling you something they know
about history. For a moment I really thought that you, or somebody,
might have some evidence for a theory like this. But no, seems like it's
just more mike mind-vapour.
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
(Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> > the word in question is "look." It has cognates in German.
>> > Eg, in my own Austrian dialect, we have "luag'n", to look
>> > (at), to stare. Eg, "Da hat'a aber g'luagt" -- "He sure
>> > started looking then."
>> Looks like a survival of MHG <luogen>, OHG <luogên>; does it
>> exist in the standard language?
>"lugen"
Thanks. I see that Harper-Collins marks it as dialectal, which
probably explains why I'd never run into it before.
Brian
mike
it's implicit, and i've already posted my idea of what i'd hope a newsgroup
on language science might look like.
you understand that, vor me, the language isn't an idea of an inventory of
language objects. i'd look at a post like mine, and wonder when "modern"
started for this guy, and how intricate his notion of "idea" is. it may
very well be, after all, that we are wired such that we only look at what
we can look at... that everything is perceived as otherness, and that it is
our social language which allows us to differentiate the elements of a
world... something which science does as process.
how do we first see things? if you give me an apple and say "apple", what
is it that you are calling "apple"? you'll have to explain fruit and its
structure... skin and skin color and flesh. at what point am i able to look
at an apple for myself? when i can pick one out, yes?
but, what about the sky? is the sky really separate from the earth? they
look like two different things, and i can touch the earth... though i can't
touch the top of mt. analog. but the connection between the two is
seamless, and i only know about sky as space through hearsay: it doesn't
look like "space" at all, it looks like a varigated brightness. but, i
don't think i look at the sky at all. i see parts of it, but not the whole
sky at once. i might say that i am bathed in the brightness of the sky...
that it is the most i can know of brightness until i see something
brighter.
benlizross
>
> John Smith <jsm...@company.com> wrote in news:3DA25678.7182A304
> @company.com:
>
> > Ok, I've been following this little exchange, and it's clear that
> > "benlizross" is after insights and "mike" is only after posing and
> > bullshit.
> >
> > An outside opinion.
> >
> > \\P. Schultz
> >
>
> i'd say you'd got the inner opinion. dross is trying to force a simplistic
> view of language study as an engineering adventure, with adventure
> engineers as heros.
I don't think you actually believe this cartoon version of what's
happening, except that it's useful as a pretext to endlessly avoid.
i'm trying to find what it is that makes language so
> much more interesting than, say computer programming instructions
> (something which i write).
>
> the topic of the exchange is whether the word "look" can be understood as a
> look-up item in a structured inventory, or whether it has many different
> and concurrent meanings in actual usage.
No, that's not the topic. The topic is the actual history of the word.
>you seem to be some sort of
> thought police, so perhaps you could tell me where to get a license to
> speak to dross in a way he'd accept?
Turn off the cartoons, mike. There are no police. No license is
required. Answering questions, providing evidence for claims, and being
less insulting would be way acceptable.
Ross Clark
mike
> mike wrote:
>>
>> John Smith <jsm...@company.com> wrote in news:3DA25678.7182A304
>> @company.com:
>>
>> > Ok, I've been following this little exchange, and it's clear that
>> > "benlizross" is after insights and "mike" is only after posing and
>> > bullshit.
>> >
>> > An outside opinion.
>> >
>> > \\P. Schultz
>> >
>>
>> i'd say you'd got the inner opinion. dross is trying to force a
>> simplistic view of language study as an engineering adventure, with
>> adventure engineers as heros.
>
> I don't think you actually believe this cartoon version of what's
> happening, except that it's useful as a pretext to endlessly avoid.
believe it.
>
> i'm trying to find what it is that makes language so
>> much more interesting than, say computer programming instructions
>> (something which i write).
>>
>> the topic of the exchange is whether the word "look" can be understood
>> as a look-up item in a structured inventory, or whether it has many
>> different and concurrent meanings in actual usage.
>
> No, that's not the topic. The topic is the actual history of the word.
history is your inventory? what if that was only one presentation of
whatever memory sense we create when we invent other than now?
>
>>you seem to be some sort of
>> thought police, so perhaps you could tell me where to get a license to
>> speak to dross in a way he'd accept?
>
> Turn off the cartoons, mike. There are no police. No license is
> required. Answering questions, providing evidence for claims, and being
> less insulting would be way acceptable.
what's innit 4 m3?
>
> Ross Clark
>
benlizross
This is very pleasant. Where can I get the CD?
Ross Clark
benlizross
well, it would be the presentation we were talking about
>
> >
> >>you seem to be some sort of
> >> thought police, so perhaps you could tell me where to get a license to
> >> speak to dross in a way he'd accept?
> >
> > Turn off the cartoons, mike. There are no police. No license is
> > required. Answering questions, providing evidence for claims, and being
> > less insulting would be way acceptable.
>
> what's innit 4 m3?
mystery to me, as you know
Ross Clark
mike
> mike wrote:
>>
>> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>> news:3DA27C...@ihug.co.nz:
>>
>> > mike wrote:
>> >>
>> >> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>> >> news:3DA1E7...@ihug.co.nz:
>> >>
>> >> > mike wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> >> >> news:jbysxveflzcngvpbp...@news1.sympatico.ca:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:04:29 GMT, mike wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>why are you assuming that english is only germanic? what if
>> >> >> >>the word was borrowed? or, maybe you think that "cht" isn't a
>> >> >> >>'k' sound? anyway, "light" is first a religious word, then an
>> >> >> >>object of nature.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > the word in question is "look." It has cognates in German. Eg,
>> >> >> > in my own Austrian dialect, we have "luag'n", to look (at), to
>> >> >> > stare. Eg, "Da hat'a aber g'luagt" -- "He sure started looking
>> >> >> > then."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > HTH
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Best Wishes,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wolf Kirchmeir
>> >> >> > Blind River, Ontario
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ...............................................................
>> >> >> > ... You can observe a lot by watching
try any savings bank.
Wugi
Harlan schreef in berichtnieuws:
> > > Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
> > > Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
(BTW my -Dutch!- etymodico gives relation Breton, oCorn. lagad, lagat, eye.
Nothing else. D. = loeken)
> > Actually, it's related to Chinese lu3 (three-point water on the
> > left, "salt" on the right) "halogen". Halogen > light > look,
> > a natural enough semantic shift. Oh, via Maya of course! (Whew,
> > I nearly forgot mentioning Maya. Must be more careful with my
> > posts in the future).
>
> Méchant. I'm on *your* side! I was hoping this would be another pair of
> visually similar, semantically similar, yet demonstrably unrelated words
> from demonstrably *closely related* languages for my collection.
I had some beauties and questions. I remember:
Folk (D. volk !) --- L. vulgus.
Hand --- L. pre_hend_ere, really related to get.
Are hand and hunt related?
Habere --- have (is it? is it not? My concise English etymodico relates have
to capere, and habere to give !?)
Good --- Gr. Agathos ??
Whole --- Gr. holos (really related to L. salvus)
One --- Gr. heis, hen (really related to same and L. simul?)
Bad is bad in, is it Pashto or some alike, OK a far relation there?
Path, D. pad, and Gr. patos, really related to find and L. pons, bridge.
Will try and look up for others...
Greetz
Guido
http://www.ping.be/wugi/
benlizross
I meant it as a compliment to the flow of your prose. I could even
imagine listening to it while eating dinner. But it's not something I
would be inclined to respond to. I might be interested in what "modern"
means to you if we were having a discussion about the semantics of
"modern". But we weren't. It might also have become relevant if you were
making a serious historical claim about "modern" changes in human
consciousness/language which you were going to support with evidence.
But that didn't happen either.
Ross Clark
mike
>> >> >> >> > ... ... You can observe a lot by watching
>> >> >> >> > (Yogi Berra, Phil. Em.)
>> >> >> >> > ............................................................
>> >> >> >> > ... ...
ok, but i can only understand what you are saying if i suppose that
language is an innate and irreversable linking of one object to one
representation of that object. i can't see that being the case, because it
seems to me that there really is only one object available to our
consciousness, and that the consciousness is a dynamic [exchange] of
necessarily arbitrary symbol for symbol.
> But we weren't.
i always understand that the context of the discussion involves both what i
know and what i don't know. what i know is a personal association, and what
i don't know is available as modification of my associations or as
surprise.
> It might also have become relevant if you
> were making a serious historical claim about "modern" changes in human
> consciousness/language which you were going to support with evidence.
> But that didn't happen either.
"evidence" is what, for you? who can you trust? it's always a matter of
asking why someone wrote what they wrote. there is no objectivity, only
inspired childisness. "Proto Indo-European"? what can that possibly mean?
we make assumptions of sound rules and extrapolate: there is no scientific
objectivity in history; models of possibility but we've no varification...
even with statistics. the texts we use? what is "god" for instance? a
translator's christ and father, or a common person's persistant polytheism?
as my teacher (a monarchist and echt-christian) -- would have it: "They say
these things, but they really mean...", and, if he were writing a history
of language, of Proto Indo-European, what would he say about the origins of
this word "god"? my teacher was a sophisticated Parisian of the 1930's --
imagine, then, what a 9th century monk would have to say about god and
gods... his assumptions and inability to allow ambiguity, how he'd adapt
the local concept into the orthodox (Augustine was probably the last
canonised, professional, christian to doubt christianity, to look at names
as words). the word "god" is difficult, and so "origin unknown" is fine,
but think also of the difficulty with words like "girl" and "light"... i
don't know that these concepts existed for 9th century people in the way
they seem so natural to us. it may be that, past and present, we are so
compelled to accept the individual object as object for us that we cannot
speak of objects as creations of our own need. if this is the case, then an
orthodoxy of dictionary and word-engineer is reasonable.
> Ross Clark
>
John Smith
>
> John Smith <jsm...@company.com> wrote in news:3DA25678.7182A304
> @company.com:
>
> > Ok, I've been following this little exchange, and it's clear that
> > "benlizross" is after insights and "mike" is only after posing and
> > bullshit.
> >
> > An outside opinion.
> >
> > \\P. Schultz
> >
>
> <...> you seem to be some sort of thought police, <...>
Kind of crabby, too.
\\P. Schultz
mike
well, that's ok., i'm early cancer myself. how come you're interested in
language?
Harlan Messinger
>
>Harlan schreef in berichtnieuws:
>
>> > > Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"? Neither
>> > > Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English "locian".
>
>(BTW my -Dutch!- etymodico gives relation Breton, oCorn. lagad, lagat, eye.
>Nothing else. D. = loeken)
>
>> > Actually, it's related to Chinese lu3 (three-point water on the
>> > left, "salt" on the right) "halogen". Halogen > light > look,
>> > a natural enough semantic shift. Oh, via Maya of course! (Whew,
>> > I nearly forgot mentioning Maya. Must be more careful with my
>> > posts in the future).
>>
>> Méchant. I'm on *your* side! I was hoping this would be another pair of
>> visually similar, semantically similar, yet demonstrably unrelated words
>> from demonstrably *closely related* languages for my collection.
>
>I had some beauties and questions. I remember:
>Folk (D. volk !) --- L. vulgus.
I like that one. The AHD, unfortunately, doesn't take "vulgus" back
any further.
>Hand --- L. pre_hend_ere, really related to get.
>Are hand and hunt related?
>Habere --- have (is it? is it not? My concise English etymodico relates have
>to capere, and habere to give !?)
>Good --- Gr. Agathos ??
>Whole --- Gr. holos (really related to L. salvus)
>One --- Gr. heis, hen (really related to same and L. simul?)
>Bad is bad in, is it Pashto
ISTR it's Persian. Not sure.
>or some alike, OK a far relation there?
>Path, D. pad, and Gr. patos, really related to find and L. pons, bridge.
>
>Will try and look up for others...
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jacques Guy
> I had some beauties and questions. I remember:
> Folk (D. volk !) --- L. vulgus.
> Hand --- L. pre_hend_ere, really related to get.
> Are hand and hunt related?
> Habere --- have (is it? is it not? My concise English etymodico relates have
> to capere, and habere to give !?)
> Good --- Gr. Agathos ??
> Whole --- Gr. holos (really related to L. salvus)
> One --- Gr. heis, hen (really related to same and L. simul?)
> Bad is bad in, is it Pashto or some alike, OK a far relation there?
> Path, D. pad, and Gr. patos, really related to find and L. pons, bridge.
I'll try and do better.
First, just this morning, I was struck (ouch!) by this _obvious_
Germano-Japanese cognate:
o- "grand" as in opa, oma "grandfather, grandmother"
oo- augmentative prefix as in oozei, oomukashi "great crowd, great
antiquity"
Next Modern Greek fenggari "moon". I was reminded of it yesterday,
when I received the Bulletin du Centre d'Etudes sur l'Ile de Pâques
et la Polynésie. It had a page on the petroglyphs of Pitcairn Island,
which, as I hope you know, have been deciphered by Barry Fell
(see "21st Century Science and Technology", 2001-2002 winter issue).
Those petroglyphs are old (2500 years according to Fell), but there,
plain for all (except me) to see, is the Greek word for "moon":
fenggari. Now it just occurred to me that this is related to
English via Chinese. Indeed, about the time those petroglyphs
were scratched by Ancient Greeks, Zhuangzi wrote "When you point
at the _moon_ with your _finger_ [snip rest of quote]".
There you are: when you point at the _fenggari_ with your
_finger_!
I had another brilliant cognate pair, but it slipped my mind
as I was writing this. Oh, got it! Psomi. Greek, too. Clearly
related to English "psalm". Psalms are churchy stuff. So is
bread (psomi), viz this is my body (the bread), this is my
blood (the wine).
benlizross
I can't understand why such a supposition should be necessary to
understanding what I say.
i can't see that being the case, because it
> seems to me that there really is only one object available to our
> consciousness, and that the consciousness is a dynamic [exchange] of
> necessarily arbitrary symbol for symbol.
Well, none of that seems to me, so....?
>
> > But we weren't.
>
> i always understand that the context of the discussion involves both what i
> know and what i don't know. what i know is a personal association, and what
> i don't know is available as modification of my associations or as
> surprise.
how could it be otherwise?
But we weren't discussing the meaning of "modern".
Evidence is something other than "mike says this is how it was", which
was all you gave us. Evidence is also something other than mike
bloviating all afternoon about "what is evidence?" "how do we know?"
"what is god?" etc. I am sure your old teacher knew what evidence was,
and in fact he was probably talking about some of it when he uttered
those words. You don't need to spend time convincing me of the
difficulties involved in interpreting the past. All you need to do is
have something to say when you say
m: our notion of our mind creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
>
> or
>
> remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate
> from all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
and I reply
R: Why do you think so? And why should I think so?
(And I would be asking those questions not only of the historical change
you postulate but also of the "ideas" and "notions" that you attribute
to "us".)
Ross Clark
mike
>> >> >> >> >> > ... ... ... You can observe a lot by watching
>> >> >> >> >> > (Yogi Berra, Phil. Em.)
>> >> >> >> >> > .........................................................
>> >> >> >> >> > ... ... ...
pointless. you've never thought about the nature of evidence, have you?
you've always assumed that what was real to you was real to every
reasonable person. "real" is an aesthetic presumption -- evidence is real
if it's accepted as relevant. acceptance is an aesthetic determination.
>
> m: our notion of our mind creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
>>
>> or
>>
>> remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate from all
>> essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
>
> and I reply
>
> R: Why do you think so? And why should I think so?
>
> (And I would be asking those questions not only of the historical
> change you postulate but also of the "ideas" and "notions" that you
> attribute to "us".)
>
> Ross Clark
>
to what end? for clarification or dismissal? it doesn't matter really.
benlizross
Now you're getting nasty again. Your vanity is not your pretty side. And
your assumption that everybody who is not part of the mighty mike mind
has led a life of abject mental stagnation not only aborts dialog, as I
already pointed out, but also fails the reality test. But I see you've
got that covered:
"real" is an aesthetic presumption -- evidence is real
> if it's accepted as relevant. acceptance is an aesthetic determination.
This sounds like R.I.P. for any real discussion between you and anybody
else here. Happy solipsism.
Ross Clark
Douglas G. Kilday
"Wugi" <guido...@planetinternet.be> wrote in message
news:anv31e$f2l$1...@reader13.wxs.nl...
>
> Harlan schreef in berichtnieuws:
>
> > > > Does "look" go back to the same root as Latin "lux" = "light"?
Neither
> > > > Merriam Webster nor AHD takes "look" back before Old English
"locian".
>
> (BTW my -Dutch!- etymodico gives relation Breton, oCorn. lagad, lagat,
eye.
> Nothing else. D. = loeken)
>
anyone looked for cognates in Tocharian?
>
> [...]
>
> Path, D. pad, and Gr. patos, really related to find and L. pons, bridge.
>
Kluge's theory about borrowing from Scythian. I can swallow <hemp>, but why
would Proto-Germans borrow <path> from nomads? Serious objections have been
raised by Theodora Bynon, "Concerning the Etymology of English PATH",
Transactions of the Philological Society 1966:67-87. The meaning 'valley'
found in OE and dialectal forms of <path> has no counterpart in the alleged
Iranian etymon, there are no other recognized Scythian loanwords in Germanic
at the level of 'path', and the distribution of cognates in the older
languages (OE, OHG, OFris, but not OS, ON) is hardly compatible with an
eastern origin. Bynon herself regards <path> as a borrowing from Celtic,
related to Welsh <pant> 'valley', Cornish <pans> 'hollow' (in place-names),
and MIr <ce:te> 'path, meadow' (from Proto-Celtic */qwNt-/), though she
admits that the short /a/ poses a problem. Anyhow, the etymology of <path>
should not be taken as settled.
DGK
mike
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ... ... ... ... You can observe a lot by watching
>> >> >> >> >> >> > (Yogi Berra, Phil. Em.)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ......................................................
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ... ... ... ...
well, if it's not a discussion you can follow, then you you can go talk to
harlan.
Daniel D Scripture
mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in news:3DA3B9...@ihug.co.nz:
>
[a great deal of bullshit deleted. And I'm sure
the attributions are screwed up, but this in Ross
and mike]
>> was all you gave us. Evidence is also something other than mike
>> bloviating all afternoon about "what is evidence?" "how do we know?"
>> "what is god?" etc. I am sure your old teacher knew what evidence was,
>> and in fact he was probably talking about some of it when he uttered
>> those words. You don't need to spend time convincing me of the
>> difficulties involved in interpreting the past. All you need to do is
>> have something to say when you say
>
>pointless. you've never thought about the nature of evidence, have you?
>you've always assumed that what was real to you was real to every
>reasonable person. "real" is an aesthetic presumption -- evidence is real
>if it's accepted as relevant. acceptance is an aesthetic determination.
And how in hell would you know what he's thought about? It is
perfectly clear that whatever you've thought about, you refuse
to give a coherent account of it. The only time you are coherent is
when you are insulting someone, as above. It might be that "real" is
an aesthetic determination. It might even be that something I read in
grad school 25 years ago argued for that position. But you've just
tossed this claim out. You have to _argue_ for things, if you expect
to be taken seriously, or even expect not to be ignored and routinely
kill-filed. A very large number of people besides you have had
occasion to think about the nature of evidence in a sophisticated way.
So far you haven't demonstrated that you've given it any thought at
all, beyond the above, not any indication that you have read the whole
library of stuff written about this issue, ranging from philosopy to
whatever.
You have a very irritating habit of thinking that you are the first
person on earth to think some interesting thought. You're not, so
far, and I doubt you ever will be. But let me fill you in--every
stupid fucking thing you've ever suggested in this group I've seen in
print, or something close to it, at one time or another,
in my 50+ years of reading. Nothing you say is the least bit new,
fresh, interesting, arresting, thoughtful, or challenging. So
please stop acting superior. You are quite ordinary intellectually,
sorry to break the news. Break down and read a few books or
something.
>> m: our notion of our mind creating the objects we see is a modern idea.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate from all
>>> essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
>>
>> and I reply
>>
>> R: Why do you think so? And why should I think so?
>>
>> (And I would be asking those questions not only of the historical
>> change you postulate but also of the "ideas" and "notions" that you
>> attribute to "us".)
>>
>> Ross Clark
>>
>to what end? for clarification or dismissal? it doesn't matter really.
Matter to whom? Whether something matters or not is not a general
issue, working from what you say above, so it must matter to _someone_
(or not matter). So, doesn't matter to you, doesn't matter to Ross,
doesn't matter to me, doesn't matter to the underdetermined "us"?
To whom does it not matter really?
Can't you do better than flailing like that? You aren't even a good
troll.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
Peter Dy
"Daniel D Scripture" <scr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote in message
news:3da64e4a$1...@news.ucsc.edu...
[...]
> Can't you do better than flailing like that? You aren't even a good
> troll.
Sometimes trolls bring about some interesting threads (Whittet) or amusement
(Shlafly brothers), but mike just *sucks*! No redeeming features at all.
Oh well... Sorry.
Peter
Yahya M
that Proto-Indo-European *k became h in Germanic. English k came from PIE *g.
You would need a PIE source **leug- or **log- to produce English look, but no
such root exists. PIE *log- 'reject, despise' became Sanskrit lajja 'shame'
and English lack. PIE *lug- 'bend, twist' became English lock.
Latin lux and Greek leukos are clearly related both in form and meaning.
They go back to the same Proto-Indo-European root, *leuk- as Sanskrit loka
'place', Latin locus 'place', Lithuanian laukas 'field', and English lea
'meadow, grassland'.
The original concept seems to have been an open clearing as opposed to the
woods, a place where sunlight can shine in. 'Clearing' > 'open space' >
'space' > 'place'.
Sanskrit locanam 'eye' does come from the same root as lux.
Look cannot be traced back any further than Common West Germanic *lokojan, and
the only other modern cognate is German lugen 'show, be visible; peep, spy'.
mike
news:3da64e4a$1...@news.ucsc.edu:
> In article <Xns92A1C5EB73CFB...@66.75.162.198>,
> mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>>benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>>news:3DA3B9...@ihug.co.nz:
>>
>
> [a great deal of bullshit deleted. And I'm sure
> the attributions are screwed up, but this in Ross
> and mike]
>
>>> was all you gave us. Evidence is also something other than mike
>>> bloviating all afternoon about "what is evidence?" "how do we know?"
>>> "what is god?" etc. I am sure your old teacher knew what evidence
>>> was, and in fact he was probably talking about some of it when he
>>> uttered those words. You don't need to spend time convincing me of
>>> the difficulties involved in interpreting the past. All you need to
>>> do is have something to say when you say
>>
>>pointless. you've never thought about the nature of evidence, have you?
>>you've always assumed that what was real to you was real to every
>>reasonable person. "real" is an aesthetic presumption -- evidence is
>>real if it's accepted as relevant. acceptance is an aesthetic
>>determination.
>
> And how in hell would you know what he's thought about?
because he attributes as a certainty, in a language science forum, what
ought to be ambiguous: this isn't talk radio, so we're allowed to say that
language is whatever we think it is. b
> It is
> perfectly clear that whatever you've thought about, you refuse
> to give a coherent account of it.
how about this:
> The only time you are coherent is
> when you are insulting someone,
this isn't the case at all. where's ur evidence?
> as above. It might be that "real" is
> an aesthetic determination. It might even be that something I read in
> grad school 25 years ago argued for that position. But you've just
> tossed this claim out. You have to _argue_ for things, if you expect
> to be taken seriously, or even expect not to be ignored and routinely
> kill-filed. A very large number of people besides you have had
> occasion to think about the nature of evidence in a sophisticated way.
> So far you haven't demonstrated that you've given it any thought at
> all, beyond the above, not any indication that you have read the whole
> library of stuff written about this issue, ranging from philosopy to
> whatever.
>
> You have a very irritating habit of thinking that you are the first
> person on earth to think some interesting thought.
i don't know why, but you aren't helping by extending the conversation into
the topics which i'm bringing up. i'm not the originator of these ideas, in
my world, and i don't pretend that it is.
> You're not, so
> far, and I doubt you ever will be. But let me fill you in--every
> stupid fucking thing you've ever suggested in this group I've seen in
> print, or something close to it, at one time or another,
> in my 50+ years of reading. Nothing you say is the least bit new,
> fresh, interesting, arresting, thoughtful, or challenging.
well, you might try geritol.
> So
> please stop acting superior.
are you the only one that gets to act superior? ok. what is the connection
between language and thought? can you say something about this please,
because that's kind of the root of the concept "language science".
> You are quite ordinary intellectually,
> sorry to break the news. Break down and read a few books or
> something.
what do you suggest? star trek transcriptions?
>
>>> m: our notion of our mind creating the objects we see is a modern
>>> idea.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> remember that we hadn't an idea of "light" as being separate from
>>>> all essential brightnesses until the middle ages.
>>>
>>> and I reply
>>>
>>> R: Why do you think so? And why should I think so?
>>>
>>> (And I would be asking those questions not only of the historical
>>> change you postulate but also of the "ideas" and "notions" that you
>>> attribute to "us".)
>>>
>>> Ross Clark
>>>
>>to what end? for clarification or dismissal? it doesn't matter really.
>
> Matter to whom? Whether something matters or not is not a general
> issue, working from what you say above, so it must matter to _someone_
> (or not matter). So, doesn't matter to you, doesn't matter to Ross,
> doesn't matter to me, doesn't matter to the underdetermined "us"?
> To whom does it not matter really?
>
> Can't you do better than flailing like that? You aren't even a good
> troll.
>
> Dan Scripture
> UC Santa Cruz
>
>
awesome.
mike
news:20021011005316...@mb-cr.aol.com:
> The English word that's actually related to lux is lea (< OE leah).
> Remember that Proto-Indo-European *k became h in Germanic. English k
> came from PIE *g. You would need a PIE source **leug- or **log- to
> produce English look, but no such root exists. PIE *log- 'reject,
> despise' became Sanskrit lajja 'shame' and English lack. PIE *lug-
> 'bend, twist' became English lock.
>
> Latin lux and Greek leukos are clearly related both in form and
> meaning.
>
> They go back to the same Proto-Indo-European root, *leuk- as Sanskrit
> loka 'place', Latin locus 'place', Lithuanian laukas 'field', and
> English lea 'meadow, grassland'.
watch out for the idea that lok might be lok/k'ral... the protected
place.
>
> The original concept seems to have been an open clearing as opposed to
> the woods, a place where sunlight can shine in. 'Clearing' > 'open
> space' > 'space' > 'place'.
>
> Sanskrit locanam 'eye' does come from the same root as lux.
this locanam means "to eye something", or means "the sight organ" itself?
>
> Look cannot be traced back any further than Common West Germanic
> *lokojan, and the only other modern cognate is German lugen 'show, be
> visible; peep, spy'.
maybe "look" can be a cousin to "watch", "waecce", so, "wake", "woke"?
and that one or the other (probably "watch"?) having become a special
activity of watching (i.e., why "lookout"?), kept the older or foreign
form?
anyway, the meat-thugs will appreciate the meat of this.