True, and agreed to an extent (I am an Erisian after all). The
traditionalist in me wants to make sure everything is true and
accurate, that we owe that much to the Art. The chaote in me is
willing to acknowledge the evolution of the Art and realize that we
contribute to it just as much as any of the "founders" and as such am
willing to allow a little flexability, especially for the sake of
cohesion. It's a fine line, that. Generally speaking, though, I think
we'd do more toward reclaiming legitmacy if we could get everyone to
shower on a regular basis :-p
On Nov 12, 2007 8:28 PM, Thomas K. Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Great question, Ty.
>
> I personally think "no, the etymology doesn't matter so much as usage and context. Unlessssss...." and here's where it gets sticky. I am both an academician AND a practitioner, which means that lots of what gets ladled out as pop-pagan isn't acceptible to my level of academic integrity. I can understand the usage and the context of words like Dryhten, but can't participate in it fully because of my background. And, since I think I'm representative of a fairly large sub-population of Witches, things like etymology become necessary if one is working toward credibility in the spiritual sphere.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Ty Falk wrote:
>
> > So then as a symbolic anthropologist I would ask, unless you are
> > specifically working on a linguistic project, does the etymology
> > necessarily matter so much as the usage and context? There seems to be
> > some support that the term could be hobbled together, regardless to
> > the gramatical accuracy, sort of like a pagan Bush-ism. So then would
> > it's meaning within it's usage context then become of greater
> > importance? After all, does the chemical makeup of a rock matter so
> > much as the fact that someone is using it to represent the naughty
> > bits of Shiva?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 12, 2007 8:02 PM, Felicia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> Ty,
> >> We could just as easily conjecture that the words are properly formed
> >> as Tan af drych or Tendrych
> >> and that modern California pagan folklorists are combining Welsh words
> >> willy nilly in ways
> >> that the Welsh, themselves, would never do and might, in fact, laugh
> >> raucously about. ;->
> >>
> >> Felicia
> >> a skeptic who grew up in California which is known as the Land of
> >> Fruits, Nuts & Flakes
> >> whose emails to the Listserve are no longer bouncing
> >> Thank you, Amy!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Ty Falk wrote:
> >>
> >>> This might be a stupid question coming from someone who knows next to
> >>> nothing on the topic, but how much of the linguistic evolution was
> >>> purely oral? For example, new words are "officially" added to the
> >>> English language all the time, often because of cultural usage. Would
> >>> it be possible that this combination was such a product, passed willy
> >>> nilly through oral tradition of some for or another with no central
> >>> authority to "legitimize" it's use?
> >>
> >
>
--
Ty Falk
~~~~~~~
Erisian
Anthropologist
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
|