Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>
> Sorry for ending the previous posrting so abruptly, but the screen
> started to flicker.
>
>
> > > ...But to turn this question into a linguistic and indeed
> > > etymological question: Does anyone have a word for "Nature"

(as

> > > in "natural order", or a "law of nature", or "what is natural
> for
> > > man") from any language that was not influenced by Greek?
> > >
> >
> A quote from Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Society
> (cf. http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/md.html)
>
> "
> In historical times the root *med- designated a great variety
> of different things: "govern", "think", "care for", "measure".
> The primary meaning cannot be determined simply by reducing all
> these to a vague common denominator or by a confused

agglomeration

> of the historically attested forms. It can be defined

as "measure"

> not "measurement", but "moderation" (Lat. modus, modestus),
> designed to restore order in a sick body (Lat. medeor "care for",
> medicus), in the universe (Hom. Zeùs (Idèthen) medéo:n "Zeus the
> moderator"), in human affairs, incuding the most serious like
> war, or everyday things like a meal. Finally, the man who knows
> the médea (Hom. mé:dea eidó:s) is not a thinker, a philosopher,
> he is one of those "chiefs and moderators" (Hom. hégé:tores e:dè
> médontes) who in every circumstance know how to take the tried
> and tested measures which are necessary. *Med-, therefore,
> belongs to the same register of terms as ius and díke: : it is
> the established rule, not of justice but of order, which it is
> the function of the magistrate to formulate: Osc. med-diss (cf.
> iu-dex).
> "
>
> The fact(?) that this root is found outside IE may answer your
> question. Also, there seems to be a connection with another world-
> upholding thing: the pole at at the center of the world (not to be
> confused with Pooh's North Pole).
>
> As for the early existence of the other concept, that of immediate
> action, unbound by rules, from the other side, see:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/bHA.html
>
> This is the idea of divine inspiration, also felt at times by
> creative artists (Carl Nielsen said that at times he felt like
> hollow reed through which music flowed from he didn't know where).
> Note the opposition 'fas' vs. 'jus': divine law (because the god

(s)

> have willed it so) and earthly law (because we have determined

this

> it should be so)
>

I'm not sure you are meeting all possible objections. Pre-
philosophical people see that things happen as the result of
deliberate actions by humans or by gods. Gods were in everything.
Perhaps we can also add "chance". What the concept of nature does is
tells us that even gods, humans souls and perhaps even chance, are
controlled by something else. Are we really sure such a concept
existed before the Greeks? I am not saying it couldn't be, only that
I can't think of any prior evidence.

> > > I probably have to explain this a bit more in order to make

sure

> I
> > > am not misunderstood. Physis was of course an old word

referring

> > to
> > > growth, and more generally, existance involving change
> > > and "becoming". It came to refer to a metaphysical concept:
> > > the "way", the "rules", by which *all* things change and
> interact.
> > > In other words, we post-Greeks believe that apart from the
> normal
> > > existance of a thing, there is another type of existence,
> because
> > > there is a set or "rules" which determine how all of nature
> works.
> > > This in turn leads to the separation of faith and science.
> > >
>
> As I said, I don't think we're so post-Greek after all. The

question

> is: Did Plato invent or merely compile?
>

I'm sure he did both.

Best Regards
Andrew