User talk:Sabbeumnim

Welcome to Wikipedia!
GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!.. I'm just curious by your recent entry in the Philology introduction. "The commonality, not the origin or age, of any studied languages, is important, thought those factors are important."... Could you add maybe one more line to define what you mean by 'commonality'? Do you mean: commonality of academic opinion? agreed upon terms of what the a particualr word might mean in a historical context? And I'm guessing that the factors you indicate that are important are the origin and age of any given word. I really cant quite see what you might think was insulting about the introduction... (I didnt write it by the way)... I think the point of the intro was to define where the word 'philology' came from... In latin it means 'grammatica'... Greek? I recall that 'philo' means love, and 'logo' ... well i dont know... But the origin of the word i imagine can have a number of sources... That is what makes words interesting and vibrant to me. I hope you can help clarify my question. I just think your entry could open a whole other line of questioning about the nature of philology. It is why i entered the concept that Nietzsche was a radical philologist... Anyway, some food for thought... User talk:Drakonicon  Drakonicon 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh forgive me... I didnt see the extent of your edits... I much prefer your new introduction to compared the old one... Ignore the above lunacy on my part.. Your work is better than the previous introduction... Great job! Drakonicon 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are a couple of great questions here. The insulting part was that it made me (people like me) sound stodgy, moldy, dusty, and smelling of wood-rot. I do a lot more than study ancient texts. It just rubbed my fur backwards and made a static electrical charge zap from ear to ear (viz. a cat). ;) As for λογος (logos), you're right, it has more than one meaning. As a theosophist, you may be aware of the heavy meanings given to that word by Mme. Blavatsky and others, once I tell you I took the most common definition of the word from the most heavily translated document in the world: the New Testament book of John. John 1:1's logos is a very strange word indeed, if you'll excuse the pun. However, it is the most widely consential translation. Finally, grammatica is not directly related to logos, but gramma, another Greek word. Remember that there are very seldom true direct translations, and sometimes no translation at all, especially when dealing with an ancient language and modern English. Sabbeumnim 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)