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?
>
|