--- "Piotr Gasiorowski <
piotr.gasiorowski@...>"
<
piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> > GK: Quite. That was the point of my question.
> > Would it imply something like "what a sight!!"?
>
>
> Not really. Gk. <drako:n> can be interpreted as 'one
> characterised by
> staring' (cf. <drakos> n. 'eye'), presumably a
> creature with evil
> eyes that hurt or kill, like a cockatrice's.
>
> Piotr
>
> *****GK: Yes, a cockatrice (from 'crocodile' BTW?).
And also a "basilisk" (whose breath or look kills).
But then if the really important thing about a dragon
(for the Greeks) is its stare should we conclude that
the fire-breathing element comes later? I don't really
know much about dragons. The popular notion today
(I've just seen the British DVD "Reign of Fire") is
that they are [imagined of course] flying lizard-like
creatures who incinerate big time. But if that is what
they were from the start (for the Greeks at least) why
would they have been called 'dragons' rather than
'fire-breathers' or the like?*****
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com