[tied] Re: dracones

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" 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)

The fact that literal translation of "devil's thing" is
"lucrul dracului" does not invalidate the point made: an
unknown thing is not a "devil" in Romanian but a "devil's
thing" or "devil's trick" (both translations are valid for
the words I mentioned above).

>>> 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.

And according to the point made, Romanians do _not_ call an
unknown thing "drac" but "drãcie" or "drãcovenie" which do not
cover the same semantical area.

> ( Additional info off topic: there is an another word "balã"=
> monster with unknown etymology too.)

FYI, I already mentioned that word in connection with Albanian
"bollë" two messages ago. One can aknowledge that by reading.

>> 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 =?

Read again your messages, I have no time to reply to all of
them. Presenting your personal convictions as if they'd be
scientifical truth is a generous source of false informations.
The last ones are about suggesting the (nick)name "Dracul"
should be linked to prior existence of "Drãculesti" and not
the generator of this family branch name. There is no reason
to mention the later name of that family branch in the context.

> 2) It seems you misunderstood what I want to say.

Oh, did I?!

> Usually the name "Dracul" for Vlad Dracul is connected to the
> episode you mentioned about. Let us take a look: [...]
> 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"?

As I already said (and you did not noticed), the image of
the dragon (an unknown animal in Wallachian tradition) has
been naturally associated with the devil by people because
the devil was the closest being available in folk imagination.
Vlad's harshness as prince of Wallachia (though less famous
than his son's) did the rest in order to back the nickname.

> This is why I assumed the name should be seen earlier as the
> episode with Sigismund.

BTW, Vlad Dracul reigned _after_ the episode with Sigismund:
XII.1436-III.1442 having also a second rule between the autumn
of 1443 and XI.1447.

> This is am reluctant to accept this relation between
> Dracul & Dragon.

Causality has to obey some chronological constraints you
should be aware of.

>>> 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?

The one with the alleged lack of factual background for the
derivation of Romanian "drac" from "draco".

> 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?

You could as well ask why Romance languages differ, it would
have been so regular to derive an unique Modern Romance with
no specificities at all. It just happened the contrary.

>>> 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"?

Well, if you don't know what a dragon is, you should first
take a look in the dictionary. For instance: "MYTH. et RELIG.
Monstre fabuleux qu'on représente généralement avec des griffes
de lion, des ailes d'aigle et une queue de saurien. Antre,
caverne du dragon. Un dragon ailé lançant du feu par les yeux,
la gueule et les narines [...]". Or: "FOLK. Figura de drac de
cartó pintat, de grans proporcions, d'aspecte monstruós i que
en alguns casos treu foc per la boca [...]".

Marius Iacomi