|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Gyrus? 234 messages | Select a forum: |
| >> "Orginally it was a psychospatial opposition, referring to inside and outside "sacred spaces", temples. "Sacred" >> But 'originally' is pretty non-specific, what source are you citing? 'The Etymological Dictionary of the English Language' by Walter Skeat. It's about the origin of the word "profane", which is now habitually opposed to "sacred" - thus, some of the sense of the word "sacred" has absorbed through contrast connotations of this word. It's not really referring specifically to the roots of "sacred" per se. You quote Chief Seattle, but, as you say, what language did he give his speech in? For what Wikipedia is worth, it's stated there that: "While Smith [the reporter who firstpublished the speech] is known to have been present on the occasion of the speech, he did not speak Chief Seattle's native coastal Salish, and there is some question as to how much of a translation even into Chinook jargon was done at the time." I'm specifically talking about English etymology here, and digging up meanings from the roots in our language will have little if any bearing on what Chief Seattle actually said. There's an interesting discussion of the word 'sacrifice' in Alan Watts' 'Nature, Man & Woman'. Of course it just means "to make sacred" (sacer-facere), and Watts argues that the destruction of the object of sacrifice is merely the inheritance of the practice of burning things to send them into the sky, to the gods. I think he's saying that this concept of 'sacrifice' is only necessarily relevant for cultures who believe all the sacred shit is up there in the heavens, and we don't need to perpetuate it if that isn't our conception of "sacred". Reply | with quote | Posted by gyrus 13th January 2006ce 19:31 In reply to: Gyrus? (morfe) |
Messages in this topic: |
|