 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009"Greenland": Erik the Red a LIAR?!?!?!
In past times, a poster called Mike3 has been arguing that the name "Pacific Ocean" be changed to some sort of designation that makes more sense to him, such as "Coruscic Ocean". The person in question does not seem to post to AUE on a very regular basis, but since I've just typed the magic word, I'm hoping that perhaps he will soon be reading this thread and participating in it. A while back on this group, I was discussing misnomers with the poster CDB, and he eventually brought up that of Greenland, a land covered with snow and ice. According to the traditional explanation (which CDB gave), the namer of the island was a *liar*!!! Now, I never like it when people lie -- not even as false advertising: # The name Greenland (Grænland in Old Norse and modern Icelandic, # Grønland in modern Danish and Norwegian) has its roots in this # colonization and is attributed to Erik the Red (the modern Inuit # call it Kalaallit Nunaat, meaning "Land of the Kalaallit # (Greenlanders)"). There are two written sources on the origin of the # name, in The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), an historical work # dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in # the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga # rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the # story of Erik the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named # the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if # it had a good name." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland) I should point out, however, that I did a bit of Web searching and found that a number of alternative explanations appear to have been proposed in more recent times. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology, which seems to contradict the information given in that other Wikipedia article. And then there's the article about misnomers in general (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer), which notes that "the settled portions of Greenland are green". I wonder how Mike3 should feel about this one, specifically the idea that Erik the Red may have been lying (i.e., using an intentionally deceptive name) for the purpose of advertising the island as a good place to live. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing other people make lots of comments about this subject. - Dan  SignatureDaniel G. McGrath Binghamton, New York e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com Dan wrote on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:04:12 -0500: > I wonder how Mike3 should feel about this one, specifically > the idea that Erik the Red may have been lying (i.e., using an > intentionally deceptive name) for the purpose of advertising > the island as a good place to live. In any case, I'm looking > forward to seeing other people make lots of comments about > this subject. My understanding was that Erik was something of a real-estate agent, not quite a liar, but the climate did allow settling by farmers along the coast in his time and Greenland had a fair population of Scandinavian origin, including priests and a bishop. Unfortunately, the average temperature steadily dropped in succeeding centuries. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > My understanding was that Erik was something of a real-estate agent, not > quite a liar, but the climate did allow settling by farmers along the > coast in his time and Greenland had a fair population of Scandinavian > origin, including priests and a bishop. Unfortunately, the average > temperature steadily dropped in succeeding centuries. And eventually the Viking colony died out. I saw an interesting documentary (BBC, I think) about it a few years ago. There's some relevant information here too. http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/ (Nothing about the ones who reached Minnesota, though.) SignatureNobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. [Mencken] > > My understanding was that Erik was something of a real-estate agent, not > > quite a liar, but the climate did allow settling by farmers along the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And eventually the Viking colony died out. It is well-known that the climate was warmer a milienium ago. Thus, the Norsemen on Greenland lived in green areas and lived as farmers. The climate is still colder than it was at the time of Erik Thorvaldsen. Maybe even colder than it was in the 400s where - the climatic change that lead to the Fall of the Romal Empire in the west. Maybe because the Roman Industrial Revolution had suddenly stopped and the extra carbondioxide to the atmosphere was no longer coming - remember, Romans knew the steam engine ... > I saw an interesting documentary (BBC, I think) about it a few years ago. > There's some relevant information here too. > > http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/ > > (Nothing about the ones who reached Minnesota, though.) Because they never did reach Minnesota. BTW, the Kensington rune stone is written in modern Swedish, not in Old Norse or Icelandic. It was found on a farm owned by a Swedish immigrant, in an area with many Swedish immigrants. This means that the one responsible for the forgery isn't necessarily the farmer. Swedish kids might have staged a practical joke with him as the victim ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > Because they never did reach Minnesota. BTW, the Kensington > rune stone is written in modern Swedish, not in Old Norse or > Icelandic. It was found on a farm owned by a Swedish > immigrant, in an area with many Swedish immigrants. > This means that the one responsible for the forgery isn't > necessarily the farmer. Swedish kids might have staged a > practical joke with him as the victim ... I didn't think any serious historian would maintain otherwise. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I didn't think any serious historian would maintain otherwise. A matter of - definition. Who is a "serious" historian :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:28:26 +0100: >> "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I didn't think any serious historian would maintain >> otherwise. > A matter of - definition. Who is a "serious" historian :-). Anyone whose work has been accepted by the majority of other historians, IMHO. An example, relevant to the Minnesota "runes" would be Samual Taylor Morrison. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >> "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >A matter of - definition. Who is a "serious" historian :-). No, no. Who's on second. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Dave Hatunen: > No, no. Who's on second. What? SignatureMark Brader | "I've just checked my dictionary, though, and it does msb@vex.net | not agree with me, which just goes to show how wrong Toronto | dictionaries can be." --Gary Williams >Dave Hatunen: >> No, no. Who's on second. > >What? Oops. Sorry. Who's on first and What's on second. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >Dave Hatunen: > >> No, no. Who's on second. > > > >What? > > Oops. Sorry. Who's on first and What's on second. I don't know about that. SignatureJohn Varela Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I didn't think any serious historian would maintain otherwise. I understood the farmer was familiar with runes. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I understood the farmer was familiar with runes. Runes are just Roman letters adopted to writing them in wood and stone, and with just a few extra letters for phonems not known in Latin. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >> > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Runes are just Roman letters adopted to writing them in wood and stone, >and with just a few extra letters for phonems not known in Latin. That doesn't mean a typical farmer would know much about them, but the farmer in question was , I believe, of Norwegian descent. Some of the runic characters bear a sort of resemblance to Latin letters, but not many. See the rune chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rune Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:53:31 -0700: >> >> "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> and stone, and with just a few extra letters for phonems not >> known in Latin. > That doesn't mean a typical farmer would know much about them, > but the farmer in question was , I believe, of Norwegian > descent. > Some of the runic characters bear a sort of resemblance to > Latin letters, but not many. See the rune chart at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rune At the time the "rune stone" was found, school boards in rural Minnesota insisted on the kids taking a couse on runes, thus high school kids had the basic knowledge to fabricate the thing. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:53:31 -0700: >>> Runes are just Roman letters adopted to writing them in wood >>> and stone, and with just a few extra letters for phonems not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >insisted on the kids taking a couse on runes, thus high school kids had >the basic knowledge to fabricate the thing. According to the Wikipedia article, the farmer said the stone was found tangled in the roots of a poplar tree that was maybe a decade old.But no one witnessed the farmer extracting the stone. Perhaps kids might have done it some ten years previously, but since the land there had not been cleared of trees and stumps (which is how the farmer found it) it seems to me unlikely that high school kids would have gone to all that trouble when the payoff seemed to be quite some time in the future. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:50:25 -0700: >> Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:53:31 -0700: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> thus high school kids had the basic knowledge to fabricate >> the thing. > According to the Wikipedia article, the farmer said the stone > was found tangled in the roots of a poplar tree that was maybe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that trouble when the payoff seemed to be quite some time in > the future., of course. I'm not totally convinced of the accuracy of all the peripheral details given in the Wikipedia article. All the knowledge that I have comes from Samuel Taylor Morrison and he does not mention the tree roots etc.tho' that does not disprove them. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:50:25 -0700: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Samuel Taylor Morrison and he does not mention the tree roots etc.tho' >that does not disprove them. I doubt that we'll ever know the true provenance of the Kensington Stone. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:50:25 -0700: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I doubt that we'll ever know the true provenance of the > Kensington Stone. Why should Norsemen from Greenland move to the later USA, Norsemen who spoke a kind of Old Norse, and in the 1500s there erect a rune stone written in modern Swedish? SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >> > Hatunen wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:50:25 -0700: >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >spoke a kind of Old Norse, and in the 1500s there erect a rune stone >written in modern Swedish? I, for one, certainly doubt any provenance involving Vikings. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That doesn't mean a typical farmer would know much about them, > but the farmer in question was , I believe, of Norwegian descent. No, Swedish. > Some of the runic characters bear a sort of resemblance to Latin > letters, but not many. See the rune chart at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rune Nevertheless, they were based on the Roman alphabet. BTW, every Scandinavian and Icelander knows the Rumes - by archaologists called the "futhark" after the first six letters. The third letter is thorn, similar to Greek theta, and in the Latin alphabet written as "th". SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I didn't think any serious historian would maintain otherwise. http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE56G58320090717 The (somewhat misleadingly named) Vinland Map has been carbon-dated to about 1440 CE. Signaturehmmmm: sounds like the same DLL hell problem my cousin had. try deleting all DLLs in your Windows/system32 directory and see what happens. (Bryce Utting) > > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The (somewhat misleadingly named) Vinland Map has been carbon-dated to > about 1440 CE. What's your point? No one doubts that the Norse reached Newfoundland. Irish and Basque fishermen may also have preceded Columbus. The point is that their discovery/ies led to nothing. Columbus's discovery led to the Americas being opened to European colonization. Columbus's discovery is the only one that matters. The Mediterranean is full of islands as is the Atlantic coast of Europe. Iceland, Greenland, the Azores, and the Canary Islands were known before Columbus. European mariners had every reason to believe that the Atlantic Ocean would be dotted with islands all the way to China. The Norse thought Vinland was an island. A report of yet another island in the Atlantic was no big deal. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> > "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > way to China. The Norse thought Vinland was an island. A report of > yet another island in the Atlantic was no big deal. Columbus topped up with supplies in the Azores, and Basque fishermen knew of the Georges Banks fishing grounds. But you are right, regardless of fact others made it here before Columbus we are here as a result of Clumbus. The neat trick was Amerigo Vespucci getting two continents named for him. Ray wrote on Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:01:35 -0400: >> >> "Per wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:13:28 +0100: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> was an island. A report of yet another island in the >> Atlantic was no big deal. > Columbus topped up with supplies in the Azores, and Basque > fishermen knew of the Georges Banks fishing grounds. > But you are right, regardless of fact others made it here > before Columbus we are here as a result of Clumbus. Mind you, Chamber's Dictionary says that America was named for Richard Ameryk, a Bristol merchant and a major investor in Cabot. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Ray wrote on Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:01:35 -0400: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Mind you, Chamber's Dictionary says that America was named for Richard > Ameryk, a Bristol merchant and a major investor in Cabot. the Vespucci story dates from 1507 the British one from 1908. I'll go with the majority and accept the older story that dates from when the principles were still alive. Vespuccis best friend and next door nighbor was the fames artist Bottecelli. so while there are no true likenesses of Colmbus tere are several very nice ones on Amerigo. > > Ray wrote on Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:01:35 -0400: > >> Columbus topped up with supplies in the Azores, and Basque > >> fishermen knew of the Georges Banks fishing grounds. > > > >> But you are right, regardless of fact others made it here > >> before Columbus we are here as a result of Clumbus. > >> The neat trick was Amerigo Vespucci getting two continents named for him. > > Mind you, Chamber's Dictionary says that America was named for Richard > > Ameryk, a Bristol merchant and a major investor in Cabot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so while there are no true likenesses of Colmbus tere are several very nice > ones on Amerigo. And the OED says: [< America, the name of a land mass of the Western hemisphere, consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by the Isthmus of Panama; frequently used also as the name of the United States of America; apparently first used in M. Waldseemüller Cosmographiae Introductio (1507) < Americus, Latinized form of the name of Amerigo Vespucci (1451-1512), Italian explorer who navigated the coast of South America in 1501.] SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est Ray wrote on Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:45:21 -0400: >> Ray wrote on Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:01:35 -0400: >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I'll go with the majority and accept the older story that > dates from when the principles were still alive. Oh, I didn't say that I believed the dictionary or had researched the story. (Check the spelling of "principle", incidentally.) There is a certain plausibility to the Ameryk notion in that he made his money trading salt cod and might have talked to Basque fishermen who had been to the Grand Banks. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > In past times, a poster called Mike3 has been arguing that the name > "Pacific Ocean" be changed to some sort of designation that makes more > sense to him, such as "Coruscic Ocean". The person in question does > not seem to post to AUE on a very regular basis, but since I've just > typed the magic word, I'm hoping that perhaps he will soon be reading > this thread and participating in it. You bet :) You like the new name for the ocean? :) > A while back on this group, I was discussing misnomers with the poster > CDB, and he eventually brought up that of Greenland, a land covered [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > place to live. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing other > people make lots of comments about this subject. Well, it may be another misnomer, but I'm sorry to say, I have no alternative suggestions for what it could be called. Can't call it Iceland, as that's already been taken... :) This is another misnomer that I noticed but never really said or thought much about. I was always kind of baffled as to why they'd call it Greenland when it sure wasn't green. The whole "Coruscic" thing actually has a bit more of a story behind it than I have been letting on to. Originally the name was invented for a "private" fiction piece, then I realized it actually seemed like a really good name for the ocean, and so it stuck. The word, although yes it does come from the word "coruscant", does not come from it directly, by the way... > A while back on this group, I was discussing misnomers with the poster > CDB, and he eventually brought up that of Greenland, a land covered > with snow and ice. According to the traditional explanation (which > CDB gave), the namer of the island was a *liar*!!! Now, I never like > it when people lie -- not even as false advertising: OK, Dan. You had trouble with "oxygen" because it is not an essential component of acids, with "Pacific Ocean" because it is often turbulent, and "Greenland" because Eric the Red graduated from Harvard Business School. Tell me, does the word "copper" bother you? Unless you think copper all comes from Cyprus it must. What percentage of the English language do you want to trash because of your insistence on treating the etymological fallacy as if it were not a fallacy? >> A while back on this group, I was discussing misnomers with the poster >> CDB, and he eventually brought up that of Greenland, a land covered [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >language do you want to trash because of your insistence on treating the >etymological fallacy as if it were not a fallacy? I don't think I've ever owned a pair of jeans that was actually made in Genoa. James >>> A while back on this group, I was discussing misnomers with the poster >>> CDB, and he eventually brought up that of Greenland, a land covered [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I don't think I've ever owned a pair of jeans that was >actually made in Genoa. And it's doubtful the denim came from Nimes Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >>I don't think I've ever owned a pair of jeans that was >>actually made in Genoa. > >And it's doubtful the denim came from Nimes Today I'm wearing my Panama hat [from Ecuador], my Bermuda shorts, and my Illinois Jacquet....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Hatunen filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Today I'm wearing my Panama hat [from Ecuador], my Bermuda shorts, and my > Illinois Jacquet....r You're living in Australia or New Zealand, I presume? At present, we have snow in the streets of Copenhagen though not much. The day temperature is 3°C, the night temperature -5°C. But in the colder countries to the south people are dying in the cold weater. Southern German, Poland, the Balkans ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= filted: >> Today I'm wearing my Panama hat [from Ecuador], my Bermuda shorts, and my >> Illinois Jacquet....r [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But in the colder countries to the south people are dying in the cold >weater. Southern German, Poland, the Balkans ... It got up to a chilly 64°F (about 18°C) here in Phoenix today....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It got up to a chilly 64°F (about 18°C) here in Phoenix today....r And in New York at the same latitude as Rome, they have lots of snow, I think. But of course, in North Western Europe we've got the Gulf Stream. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >But of course, in North Western Europe we've got the Gulf Stream. For now. Make the most of it. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> A while back on this group, I was discussing misnomers with the poster >> CDB, and he eventually brought up that of Greenland, a land covered [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >language do you want to trash because of your insistence on treating the >etymological fallacy as if it were not a fallacy? I think you should realize that if it weren't for Mike3 and all of his own complaints about "Pacific", I might have never mentioned "oxygen". Why, for that matter, does *he* have trouble with the etymological fallacy? - Dan SignatureDaniel G. McGrath Binghamton, New York e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com > On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:08:02 -0500, Martin Ambuhl > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Why, for that matter, does *he* have trouble with the etymological > fallacy? I don't know. I just saw the name, and thought it would be a good idea to have it changed. Also, does this mean you really had no complaints about any of these misnomers before I started these "debates"? > > I think you should realize that if it weren't for Mike3 and all of his > > own complaints about "Pacific", I might have never mentioned "oxygen". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know. I just saw the name, and thought it would be a good idea > to have it changed. Right on! Next we'll persuade the Nile River to flow upstream. That's where the water is really needed. > Also, does this mean you really had no complaints about any of these > misnomers before I started these "debates"? They are not "misnomers." Rational people know that names do not always accurately describe what they are naming. There are many reasons for such mismatches. But the point, which you seem not to get, is that a name is only a label, not a description, unless the person doing the naming specifically intends for the names to serve as descriptions as well. [1] There's no reason for "complaints" about whether a name matches its derivation; it does not necessarily represent anything more than what goes in the blank space marked "name."[2] My surname is "Lieblich," but you can find plenty of people who insist that I am not "lieblich" at all. (They're probably right.) You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at recording sessions? In English, the name of that great big ocean that you sail across when going from California to Japan is "Pacific Ocean." That's the end of the matter. If it had been known in English for the last three centuries as the "Coruscic Ocean," then "Coruscic Ocean" would be the name of that ocean. So fuckin' what? A name does not have to have any logical connection with what it names. I suspect that if someone wanted to waste the time on the research -- I sure as hell am not going to -- he'd [I can't imagine a woman doing this] find that most of the threads in which this topic, and others reflecting your obsession with matching names to objects, came up, most posts that weren't attempts at humor at your expense could be seen as attempts to tell you what I am trying to tell you here. You haven't clarified sh.t, fella, you have merely scattered it. I hope Dan has learned a lesson from this: Let sleeping trolls lie. [1] I stole this from the gang at Language Log. Since you almost certainly won't take my word for it, check out what the pros say. [2] On the other hand, I wouldn't name a child of mine "Shitforbrains" or "Adolf Hitler" or "JacktheRipper." Names *can* call up associations. But they don't *have to*. SignatureBob Lieblich Not feeling at all lieblich at the moment >You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at >recording sessions? A tangential thought: what a pity that Gabriel is the Recording Angel rather than the archangel Mike. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at >> recording sessions? > > A tangential thought: what a pity that Gabriel is the Recording Angel > rather than the archangel Mike. And can one really rely on the professional discretion of somebody called "Gabby"? SignatureMike. >> You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at >> recording sessions? > > A tangential thought: what a pity that Gabriel is the Recording Angel > rather than the archangel Mike. I hadn't heard that (about Gabriel). Isn't it "Gabriel, Gabriel, playin"? And if he is "announcing" then he was the personage at "The Annunciation", wasn't he? But then, what was Raphael's role? >>> You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at >>> recording sessions? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And if he is "announcing" then he was the personage at "The >Annunciation", wasn't he? But then, what was Raphael's role? The online scriptures say: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(archangel)> Raphael (Standard Hebrew ???????, Ra-p?a-?e-l, "It is God who heals", "God Heals", "God, Please Heal", Arabic: ???????, Ra-fa-?i-l) is the name of an archangel of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, who performs all manner of healing. .... The Hebrew word for a doctor of medicine is Rophe connected to the same root as Raphael From the side-box : Patronage apothecaries; blind people; bodily ills; druggists; archdiocese of Dubuque, Iowa; eye problems; guardian angels; happy meetings; insanity; lovers; mental illness; nightmares, nurses; pharmacists; physicians; archdiocese of Seattle, Washington; shepherds; sick people; travelers; young people SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at >>>> recording sessions? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The Hebrew word for a doctor of medicine is Rophe connected to the > same root as Raphael Thanks, Peter. I did do a wiki and found that they are all messengers. Both Judaism and Islam indicate Raphael as the horn-blower, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel ". Raphael (Israfil or Israafiyl). According to the Hadith, Israfil is the Angel responsible for signaling the coming of Judgment Day by blowing a horn and sending out a Blast of Truth. It translates in Hebrew as Raphael." Well, that shoots my understandings to bits. ". Gabriel (or Jibraaiyl or Jibril or Jibrail in Arabic). Gabriel is the Archangel responsible for revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad. Gabriel is known as the angel who communicates with the Prophets. He is mentioned specifically by name and as the Holy Spirit in the Qur'an." > [2] On the other hand, I wouldn't name a child of mine > "Shitforbrains" or "Adolf Hitler" or "JacktheRipper." Names *can* > call up associations. But they don't *have to*. My wife once dissuaded an acquaintance from naming her soon-to-born daughter "Chlamydia". The acquaintance had heard the word without learning its meaning, and thought it sounded pretty. SignatureLew > > [2] On the other hand, I wouldn't name a child of mine > > "Shitforbrains" or "Adolf Hitler" or "JacktheRipper." Names *can* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Chlamydia". The acquaintance had heard the word without learning its > meaning, and thought it sounded pretty. LaShonda (spelling varies) is not uncommon in the Black commumities of the Nation's Capital and environs. The first time Mrs. Bob was introduced to a young lady of that name, she barely maintained a straight face. "Shondeh" in Yiddish means something like "damned shame." Shonda Rimes is the creator and a producer of the TV how "Grey's Anatomy." With her income, I doubt she minds who laughs at her name. SignatureBob Lieblich Right, Rey? > > [2] On the other hand, I wouldn't name a child of mine > > "Shitforbrains" or "Adolf Hitler" or "JacktheRipper." Names *can* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Chlamydia". The acquaintance had heard the word without learning its > meaning, and thought it sounded pretty. What sort of reaction did the acquaintance get, anyway? <snip> >Rational people know that names do not >always accurately describe what they are naming. There are many >reasons for such mismatches. But the point, which you seem not to >get, is that a name is only a label, not a description, unless the >person doing the naming specifically intends for the names to serve as >descriptions as well. I got your buzz, Bob. <snip> SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> Also, does this mean you really had no complaints about any of these >> misnomers before I started these "debates"? > >They are not "misnomers." Are you trying to tell me that in your mind there is no such thing as a misnomer? >Rational people know that names do not >always accurately describe what they are naming. There are many >reasons for such mismatches. But the point, which you seem not to >get, is that a name is only a label, not a description, unless the >person doing the naming specifically intends for the names to serve as >descriptions as well. [1] All right. So "Greenland" was intended only as a label, not as a description, and that would explain why Spanish (for example) uses the name "Groenlandia" rather than "Verdeterra". When interpreted only as a label, the word "Greenland" is a meaningless stretch of sound and it therefore cannot be translated. Right? But then how do we explain the fact that (as Mike3 has pointed out before) a great many of the world's languages use for "Pacific Ocean" a name that sounds nothing like the Latinate word "Pacific" but *is*, however, the language's native word for "peaceful" just like "Pacific" originally was? In Russian, "tikhij" means peaceful, and the Pacific Ocean is "Tikhij okean" (not, say, "Pacificheskij okean", although the Atlantic Ocean is "Atlanticheskij okean"). The fact that the "Pacific" name has been translated into so many languages certainly suggests that it was intended as a description! How many people understand that in my mind, the existence of all those translations of "Pacific" in other languages makes the misnomer of the ocean even worse? (The technical term in linguistics for this kind of translation is "calquing". Oddly enough, "Greenland" seems to have been mostly borrowed intact. Of course the native name "Kalaallit" is an exception, but I have no idea what its etymological meaning is.) - Dan SignatureDaniel G. McGrath Binghamton, New York e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:40:44 -0500, Robert Lieblich > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > translated into so many languages certainly suggests that it was > intended as a description! That's right! > How many people understand that in my mind, the existence of all those > translations of "Pacific" in other languages makes the misnomer of the > ocean even worse? (The technical term in linguistics for this kind of > translation is "calquing". Oddly enough, "Greenland" seems to have > been mostly borrowed intact. Of course the native name "Kalaallit" is > an exception, but I have no idea what its etymological meaning is.) Well given by how many thumbed down my proposals so vigorously, I'd say not a whole lot :) mike3 wrote on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:46:09 -0800 (PST): >> Oddly enough, "Greenland" seems to have been mostly borrowed >> intact. Of course the native name "Kalaallit" is an >> exception, but I have no idea what its etymological meaning >> is.) As I implied much earlier, Erik the Red seems to have had the soul of a real estate agent. I wonder if the current native name was around in Erik's time, not that he would care, I guess. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > > > I think you should realize that if it weren't for Mike3 and all of his > > > own complaints about "Pacific", I might have never mentioned "oxygen". [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > right.) You go by "Mike." Should I expect to encounter you at > recording sessions? Lawl. Actually, I want to get my own name changed, and that is one of the reasons, because it sounds like a microphone :) > In English, the name of that great big ocean that you sail across when > going from California to Japan is "Pacific Ocean." That's the end of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > seen as attempts to tell you what I am trying to tell you here. You > haven't clarified sh.t, fella, you have merely scattered it. So what do you want clarified, anyway? <snip> >> > > I think you should realize that if it weren't for Mike3 and all of his >> > > own complaints about "Pacific", I might have never mentioned "oxygen". >> >> > > Why, for that matter, does *he* have trouble with the etymological >> > > fallacy? Mike3, do you even know what the etymological fallacy (a rather widely used term, I believe) is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy >> > I don't know. I just saw the name, and thought it would be a good idea >> > to have it changed. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >the >reasons, because it sounds like a microphone :) So, does this mean you're going to start having trouble with "rare" -- the cooking term, as in "a rare steak" -- because it sounds like a word for "uncommon"? - Dan SignatureDaniel G. McGrath Binghamton, New York e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com > >> > > I think you should realize that if it weren't for Mike3 and all of his > >> > > own complaints about "Pacific", I might have never mentioned "oxygen". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy So does this mean you think a misnomer doesn't even exist? And you _don't_ have trouble with this? And as for "Pacific" ocean, that word still means one thing: peaceful. > >> > I don't know. I just saw the name, and thought it would be a good idea > >> > to have it changed. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the cooking term, as in "a rare steak" -- because it sounds like a > word for "uncommon"? Nope. Because for one I don't think the steak knows if someone jokes about its name. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.