m_iacomi@... wrote:
> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <altamix@...> wrote:
>>
>> No. It is more proazic as you think it is. In romanian every
>> thing which is unknown is a "drac":-)
>
> No, is "drãcie" or "drãcovenie" (that is `devil's thing`).
Devil's thing should be "lucru' dracului" ( "E lucru' dracu' ce spui
matale acolo bre" = this expression should be just an example)
>
>> "Ce dracu e asta?"
>
> That expression doesn't mean the unknown object is seen as a
> "drac" (`devil`), it's just quoting some name or expression
> When you say "ce mama dracu(lui) e asta?" you don't say eihter
> that the object should be `devil's mother`. The pattern is too
> common to be falsely interpreted as you do: "Ce {some (dirty)
> expression} e asta?" which translates obviously "What {$slang}
> is this?" doesn't imply that one identifies that {$slang} with
> some object.
>
>> In so far, the amulet with the dragon which is/was unknown to
>> Romanians was simply "drac"
>
> Yes, but not because of your false folk etimology
false folk etymology? I intended to say " a dragon was unknown to the
Romanians , thus they called the unknown animal which should have been
on the amulet as usual " un drac"= something unknown in this case.
On another hand, you suppose the Romanians know already the dragon and
called it already in their language "dracu". That you could be wrong, it
should be showed by the Romanian word for dragon which is "balaur".
One will say there is a contradiction in what I write. Once I say "to
Romanians the dragon was unknown, thus this is why they called it
"drac"= meaning "unknown thing", later I wrote " the Romanian word for
"dragon" which is "balaur", in this case meaning the Romanians knew the
dragon.
I guess it is easy to explain. We should know how the dragon of the
amulet looked like. And if this one looked like a "balaur" then I am
wrong.
Balaur: monster who symbolises the negative , thought to look like a
giant snake with more heads and with wings.
( Additional info off topic: there is an another word "balã"= monster
with unknown etymology too.)
>
>> Vlad kept it trying but this is just a story. If you need
>> historical data, take a look please at the two big Families
>> The one of Danesti and the one of Draculesti. The name
>> "dracul" in connection with the father of Vlad TepeS (
>> Dracula) seems to be elder as this episode with Sigismund of
>> Luxembourg
>
> If it is about "historical data" it's by no means me who should
> take a look in a book. It's really embarassing to provide large
> amounts of false information as you do. The nickname "Drãcule$ti"
> for a branch of Basarab family is due of course to the fact that
> Mircea's son, the first "contender" from that branch, was
> nicknamed "Dracul". And your "it seems" is just wishful thinking.
1) large amount of false information =?
2) It seems you misunderstood what I want to say. Usually the name
"Dracul" for Vlad Dracul is connected to the episode you mentioned
about. Let us take a look:
"The name of Vlad Dracula is connected to the day of 8 February 1431,
when his father, Vlad I, was invested by the Holy Roman Emperor
Sigismund of Luxemburg with the Order of Dragon ( Ordinis Draconis ) for
having protected the catholicism against the Turcs. It consisted in
badges and two flags with a cross on them; at ceremonies the Dragon
knights used to wear red suits and a green silk mantie and, on Fridays,
they were dressed in black. The necklace they had at their necks was
made of two chains joint by a cross that would uphold a dragon; on the
length of the cross was written " O quam misericors est Deus " (" Oh,
how merciful God is ") and on its breadth was written " Pius et justus "
(" Kind and just "). The symbol of dragon, "draco" in Latin, was
frequent in the prehistoric art at the Euro-Asiatics and, later, it was
often used in different family or town escutcheous. In the Roman
antiquity, the dragon, a fantastic animal,was dedicated to Minerva
Goddess, meaning the idea that reason and wisdom never fall asleep.In
the Christian world the dragon was used to personify the spirit of evil
and the force of the demon. The knights of the Middle Ages adopted it as
a symbol of different obstacles that had to be overcome or as a sign of
power. It is this ancient symbol of the Order of Dragon from which the
name of " Dracul " is supposed to be assigned to Vlad I, as a nickname,
the origin of which is a Europen noble rank and that became a name
itself later."
And here is my question: The bearer of this necklace should mention the
good side , a brave one. Which should be the reason the folk gave him
the name of the dark side, of the "evil"?
This is why I assumed the name should be seen earlier as the episode
with Sigismund. But on another side, we should not forget that in the
antiquity the snake was not the symbol of the bad but the symbol for
witness and medicine ( See Esculap and his caduceus with the two snakes)
& a lot of stuff about that.
Even the snakes who protect the house are until today known and
respected ( at least in my region "sarpele de casa" ( the house's snake)
is a holy snake and it is a sin to kill it.)
This is am reluctant to accept this relation between Dracul & Dragon.
>
>> You are too in hury. I asked I got an answer, even if partly
>> I did not builded any fantasy
>
> Yes, you did
Yes? Which one?
>> here must be an explanation why from both " serpent" and
>> "draconis" one became the name of the evil
>
> You said in the previous message you don't need explanations.
Not regarding this relationship. Why serpens remained a simply snake and
draconis became the symbol of the evil. And if this was the church which
did it, why not in the other "Christian" folks? Why just in the some
romances?
>> And that should be two posibilities:
>> 1) the church used this word "dracones" as evil
>
> Not only the church. Association of a big reptile shaped fire-
> spitting monster with the devil is quite natural in Europe
Who told you the Latin "draconis" was a " big reptile shaped
fire-spitting monster"?
>
>> 2) since someone should not build fantasies prior making a
>> check, I let someone else to think about:)))
>
> Well, fair enough: you know better your limits
>
> Marius Iacomi
For sure. I know them and I show them. And I forget too quick there are
people who knows everything.( do they?)