Re: Ducks and Souls

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

> Duck on the menu:
> http://www.niagara

com/~jezovnik/national_and_cultural_treasures_of_slovenia_part_i.htm

>> Without some positive evidence you duck symbolism theory has no
>> foundation.
>
> I think you mean to say that my duck symbolism theory rests on some
> assumptions.

[...]

>> [...] that their word for 'soul, breath' was homophonous with
>> their 'duck' word (the similarity of the roots is not enough,
>> cf. Lat. <anas> vs. <animus>, not much of a pun). Only then
>> would punning have been possible.
>
> Near-homophonous. For most people, that's enough for a pun.

Not so near for my ear. Even if considered near, one cannot simply
transfer punning from a language to another assuming that the words
should have be similar too. This is unsupported.

> They seem to have reached similar conclusions in Slovenia.

"They" in fact stands for the guy having wrote the article.

>> How do you know that the Halstatt ducks (as opposed to the Roman
>> ones or to Donald Duck) had a cultic meaning?
>
> I trust the Slovenians.

It's more likely a singular: Dr. Jozko Savli. The only phrase
speaking about special cultic meaning of ducks is: "The duck,
because it moves in three elements (water, earth, and air) was a
symbol of the universe and therefore of otherworldly significance
(2)." Following the label (2) put after before the final dot, one
can read the following comment: "(2) Our interpretation of the
depicted scenes diverges partly from that of the art historians,
being the result of studies of ancient symbolism and Alpine
tradition. - J.Š." Being signed by the author, the word "our"
in the comment does not involve a group of persons, it's only
the plural of authority, extensively used in scientific papers.
So one should rephrase: "Dr. J.S., based on his general knowledge
background, believes that duck was a symbol of the universe, a
conclusion not shared by others.".

Not too much for evidence of a link with soul...

Regards,
Marius Iacomi