Amedeo

It does not matter what word is used to describe a language. The lexicon and the grammar of a language are indicators of the differentiating/insightful minds that created the language. A language which is deficient in distinctions bears witness to the nature of the minds that produced it.

It's not what I say that counts; the language speaks for itself of the mental level of its makers. Languages are not unequal in terms of the amount of vocabulary they have, but unequal in their structural differentiations. I say so because I understand languages... and anybody who has the capacity of understanding, can see the truth for himself. I do not ask to be believed. I do not proffer divine oracles and other idle myths; truth is not what comes out of the mouths of prophets. Truth is not what is believed to be true; such a "truth" bears witness to the impotence of the mind that believes.

spin

English has no future tense, buddy. And as I pointed out it has nouns which are the same as adjectives. Many English speakers are usually clueless about the use the perfect/non perfect distinction which is so important in Hebrew.

Your complaints about Hebrew are childish.

As you ignore the fact that your etymological pronouncements are simply wrong, here is an example of the form of Jupiter you refuse to admit:

Livy 31.21.12

On observing this, the praetor, in order to extend his own line, brought up the two legions from the reserve, and placed them on the right and left of the brigade which was engaged in the van; vowing a temple to Jupiter, if he should rout the enemy on that day.

id ubi uidit praetor, ut et ipse dilataret aciem, duas legiones ex subsidiis dextra laeuaque alae quae in prima acie pugnabat circumdat aedemque Diioui uouit, si eo die hostes fudisset.

Note the form of Jupiter in Latin? The one that you can't admit. You don't have to admit it now though. It's there for everyone to see.

While we're here, here's Aulus Gellius Attic Nights, 5.XII

XII. De nominibus deorum populi Romani Diovis et Vediovis. 1 In antiquis precationibus nomina haec deorum inesse animadvertimus: "Diovis" et "Vediovis"; 2 est autem etiam aedes Vediovis Romae inter arcem et Capitolium. 3 Eorum nominum rationem esse hanc comperi: 4 "Iovem" Latini veteres a "iuvando" appellavere eundemque alio vocabulo iuncto "patrem" dixerunt. 5 Nam quod est elisis aut inmutatis quibusdam litteris "Iupiter", id plenum atque integrum est "Iovispater". Sic et "Neptunuspater" coniuncte dictus est et "Saturnuspater" et "Ianuspater" et "Marspater" - hoc enim est "Marspiter" - itemque Iovis "Diespiter" appellatus, id est diei et lucis pater. 6 Idcircoque simili nomine Iovis "Diovis" dictus est et "Lucetius", quod nos die et luce quasi vita ipsa afficeret et iuvaret...

What more do you need (than Iovis "Diovis" dictus est)?


spin

Chris Weimer

I'll have you know that I'm not tone-deaf, since I can hear tones quite clearly. Unless of course you in your vainglorious ignorance abuse English, Latin, and anything else which you are unschooled in.

Chris Weimer

Singular v. Plural v. Adjective

Government is good. (singular)
The government are being protested against by an angry mob. (plural)
Government reform is always a good thing. (government is modifying reform)

Amedeo

According to Gellius:

"IUPITER" is in full "IOVISPATER" -- meaning that Ju- is short for Iovis, the nominative case [which , on the basis of the epigraphically attested IOUS-, I stated as Ious, rather than Iovis].

Gellius: Iovis is likewise called Diespiter, as he is the father of Day and Light. Accordingly, he is called Diovis and Lucetius. [These are epithets of Iovis, not meanings of the word "Iovis.]

As for the meaning of "Iovis," Gellius says that the ancients believed that the word came IUVando [Cf. iuvare] (= being beneficial to).

Obviously the ancient recognized one etym in IOVis and IUVare. Neither Gellius not I assert that this etymology is correct.
On the contrary, there is ONE etym in IOVis [or IOUs] -- whence JUpiter -- and JURo (= I swear on god... on Jupiter; I promise under oath; etc.), whence "juris prudentia" (knowledge of What is Right to do, or oath-binding), not "jovis prudentia" (Jupiter's knowledge).

spin

You made this up. It's based on no evidence at all.

Dancing around the issue won't help you escape the inevitable. Gellius is not a linguist -- linguistics didn't really emerge from philology until the middle of the 19th c. --, so you don't expect him to know about etymology. He supplies you with the notion that Iovis is also called Diespiter and Iovispater -- which shows that these forms plainly existed in Latin and must be seen to be related to Zeus-pater and Dyauspitr with Iovuspater putting Iovus in direct parallel with Dyaus and Zeus -- and that Iovis is pronounced Diovis.

This is where the Livy citation comes in. He simply uses Diiouis as the reference to Jupiter. Iouis is merely another variation and the connection between Diiouis and Dyaus should now be plain, but let's add that Zeus in the genitive is Dios.

Let's turn to ancient writers who attempted to collect Latin language traditions. Note Quintilian, who mentions in his Institutio Oratoria 1.XVII. "Diiove Victore".

Or Varro, Lingua Latina 5.10

Hoc idem magis ostendit antiquius Iovis nomen: nam olim Diovis et Diespiter dictus, id est dies pater

This same shows the old way of the name Iovis: formerly said "Diovis" and "Diespiter" and is the day father.

Dyaus alludes to the day, the sky and the divine. Jupiter is the sky god.

Gellius gives you all the information necessary for you to abandon your folly, the content of which ultimately seems to be veiled racism.


spin

Amedeo

Quintilian was not an etymologian. He never possessed the criteria for COGNATES and, therefore, he inferred on the basis of epithets of a single subject that the epithets were synonymous. (Actually, not he, but some readers of his, make fallacious inferences.)

Mary, the ever virgin, is the mother of wisdom. Therefore, [for the people who do not hear English words distinctly], "ever virgin" means "mother of wisdom."

Maria semper virginis mater sapientiae dicitur. Ergo una est virginitas et maternitas sapientialis...........

There is a guy called Jove. He used to be called Bright Sky. Therefore "jove" means "bright sky".

There is a guy called Yah. He used to be called El. Therefore, "yah" means "el."

There used to be my father's god, called El; and and my mother's god, called Yah. But there is only one god. Therefore, El and Ya are different names of the one god. Consequently, "el" and "ya" mean the same thing: "god."

(I think that by now I have accumulated enough material for my book on deranged THINKING.)

Chris Weimer

Amadeo - nothing you just said made any sense at all. Can you point to one inscription or attestation where Jupiter is called Iuropater? You won't find it anyway, for one because IURo is an impossibility - ius, iuris is third declension, not an -o declension. Iuripater would have been the correct name. But even that is never attested. Not once. Everything you said is totally full of shit - not one thing is correct.

Amedeo

(Emphases added --)
Misreading is not a virtue...
Who on earth ever said or wrote or implied that Jupiter is equivalent to Iuropater? I pointed to a common ETYM in different words, such as Ju- or justice on the one hand, and JURare [juro, juramus,...] on the other, whereas IUVare does not seem to contain the same etym.

I did not go into a discussion on the ancient suggestion about IUVARE, because "JUare" would have been a more feasible verb after Juppiter -- with reference to doing what Juppiter does, not JUbere or commanding, legislating, but something else. Since a euphonic V occurs in Latin and some neo-Latin languages, under some phonological conditions, it may be a historical fact that Gellius' "JU(v)are" was an activity attributed to Jupiter -- not according to his being personified Right and legislator, but as the Bright Sky or "Day". Thus, just as Zeus was said to rain or to snow, so, Jupiter may have been said to "juvare" -- to adduce prosperity, to make things grow, or, in a word, to be beneficial. / Some of the Romans who had gone to Palestine discovered that Jupiter, Zeus, and Yahweh were -- independently of what their names mean -- essentially identical: celestial gods and legislative gods. / Those Romans were better empirical observers/understanders than all the researches of religions lecturing from universities and pulpits.

Your evaluations of what I write come from faith as to what is and what is not, not from knowledge. They belong in the pre-philosophical stage of the human mind. Unfortunately, I am no magician that might spur cerebral evolution, and certainly, to begin with, you do not believe in cerebral evolution: God created everybody equal; the mental differences and the moral differences amongst humans are due to their believing or not believing in God. Atheists are a priori in error and in sin. Isn't that the Biblical truth!?!

Jurisprudence [reasoning about and proffering Right] used to be conducted in the temple of Jupiter, on Capitoline Hill. It may be conducted in any man's mind -- not a mind that believes in Jupiter, but a mind that is Jupiter. As such, the mind is what Heraclitus called Logos: Order-Setting Reason. (The Old or Divine Jupiter was only a legislating lord... like the law promulgating Moses.)

Amedeo

This [# 29] leads me back to the spilt of Israel into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah [whose theologizing reasons may well be stated within the Bible].
In a post I vaguely referred to "political reasons" (as proffered by the Judeans), while I saw some theological or religion dissension: The Judeans having the cult of Yahweh, and the Galileans having the cult of El.

Since, I also pointed out that there was no religious schism (that Jesus the Galilean went to the Jerusalem Temple, etc.), I thought that the difference in cult may be a difference such as we find amongst orthodox or Catholic Christians: Some congregations have the cult of, for example, Christ the King, and others of Christ the Crucified; or of Mary the Ever Virgin, and of Mary the Mother of Wisdom. For both or plural cultures, it is one and the same Christ-person that is worshipped, one and the same Mary-person that is venerated, and so forth.

Now I think: would such a superficial difference in cult be responsible for the formation of two political kingdoms? Most unlikely.

The above post of mine led me to look more deeply in the two kingdoms: the very word "kingdom" for both leads one to think erroneously, for, was it really kingdoms that were established??? Surely both had a "political government", but what is the nature of the two political societies that were established?

When Abraham instituted Israel, he was the "moral leader", at once a priest and a political lord. The formed religious-political society, which is at once such and an ethnic aggregate, is a People or TRIBE in the classical sense of the term. The government is not a lawmaker and ruler of SUBJECTS; it is the leadership of the population, which operates primarily for the common good of the tribe, rather than the private good. The tribe is autonomous, sovereign, and existing for its own survival [on the political side] and for serving God, on the regious side. "Serving God" -- NOT a political lord [whom Vico calls a "hero", namely a mighty man who has the upperhand over the subjects].

The hero or lord over subjects constitutes a mornarchy or analogous institution. The society which has a monarchy may be called a Nation, in contradistinction to a Tribe. The Nation of Judah adpoted a monarchic constitutions, changed from a tribe into a nation. It arose on the footsteps of Moses the legislator, or prophet of the legislative God, Yahweh. On the other hand, a Tribe has divine prcepts -- a moral typr of living, rather than a legal type of living. The so-called Kingdom of Israel (not a kingdom, at least at its inception) Belongs to the Vichian Age of Gods. The Kingdom of Judah belongs to the Age of heroes. (The Age of Men, which is socially definanle as an association of free men, called a republic, which is jurisprudential and anarchic -- lord-less -- was never establised by the Judeans or the Galileans, nor could it have been established, since their respective morals and laws came from their gods. There did not arise MEN who,,by virtue of their reason rather than divine grace, were the "makers" of what is right and the judges according to what is right. El did not become Yahweh, and Yahweh did not become the human Jupiter. (The incarnation of Yah's Word into Jesus of Nazareth theoretically --according to Christian theologians, superseded the Law [as well as the customary morals] by Love. Thus Augustine, who had actually learned from Cicero and who was thinking of a man's conduct toward ANY OTHER MEN, proclaimed that "Love!" the the new and only Commandment. Actually, the theologians were oblivious to political societies of men and offered a single precept for tribal men that have dissolved the closed boundaries of their tribe. A tribe is what Bergson called a closed society, in contradistinction to an open society, such as a republic or the Catholic Church/People: catholic, universal, embracing all men, not restricted to an ethnic group.

....