Church finsd wonderful, terrible news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

If one has a common noun X used as an adjective, the adjective serves as a modifier of any attending noun, but the meaning of that modifier refers back to the common noun. For example: if one says: "Bob has an elephant nose" the adjectival force and meaning of 'elephant' is derived from the common noun. It tells just what kind of nose we are dealing with only because of the priority of the common noun. If the common noun is not the base I'm uncertain how one would ground the adjective's meaning at all. If this is correct it would indicate the noun would necessarily be prior.

---

This is an arguable point, since 'elephant' is the nominal form of the word and is simply being used in place of a proper adjective, grammatically incorrectly. Making a metaphor of the sentence ("Bob has an elephant's nose") removes the adjective-noun argument completely.

Also, take for example the word 'raunchy'. I had the discussion with some friends of mine at one point, whether or not 'raunch' was a word, since 'raunch-y' is simply a noun with an adjective suffix. None of us had ever seen the word in print before, and it didn't appear in our dictionaries. Is 'raunch' a word?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?

---

I'm not a classicist and I don't speak any Greek, but I know something of linguistics and thus I think I can comment on that. Words that are derived from another have to be semantically related, but the nature of that relation can be diverse. They do not have to share all or even most qualities. Take the adjective "elephant" from your example. If a man has an elephant nose it is not meant that he actually has the nose of an elephant. The semantic relation is that it is big, just like that of an elephant. Another, closer, example is the phrase "tree-like". Trees are also physical objects, but a "tree-like structure" may resemble a tree in another quality than physicality. Therefore that "nekroo" is derived from "nekros" doesn't not necessarily mean that it shares physicality with it, only that it is semantically related by means of being connected to death. Note: as I say, I don't speak Greek and know very little about Classical Greek. It may very well be that the semantical use of "nekroo" did actually imply physicality, I just argue that that cannot be followed simply by its relation to "nekros".

thought thisawas about Church,not Greek Prexifes and Phrases.. lol

The church is a suffix to Greek philosophy.

BHCWarman88 you are right christians don't have to go to church but we should realy meet up regularly to discuss religion etc...

Why? Surely belief is from within, not without.

I would imagine that Christians used to regularly attend groups in case and evidence of heretical thought emerged.

~:smoking:

yes belief is primaryly from within, but it is infinately useful to disscuss this with other people (even more so when you don't agree) so that you can end up with a more informed opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

This is an arguable point, since 'elephant' is the nominal form of the word and is simply being used in place of a proper adjective, grammatically incorrectly.

---

I don't think saying: 'Bob has an elephant nose' is grammatically incorrect. Common nouns are turned into adjectives all the time.

Quote:

---

Also, take for example the word 'raunchy'. I had the discussion with some friends of mine at one point, whether or not 'raunch' was a word, since 'raunch-y' is simply a noun with an adjective suffix. None of us had ever seen the word in print before, and it didn't appear in our dictionaries. Is 'raunch' a word?

---

I don't think raunch is a word any more than happ is a word. The removal of the 'y' at the end of 'raunchy' or 'happy' doesn't mean it creates a noun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Words that are derived from another have to be semantically related, but the nature of that relation can be diverse. They do not have to share all or even most qualities. Take the adjective "elephant" from your example. If a man has an elephant nose it is not meant that he actually has the nose of an elephant. The semantic relation is that it is big, just like that of an elephant.

---

It seems to me if one says Bob has an elephant nose the statement is ambiguous. It could mean Bob actually has an elephant nose even if this is not the common understanding. Don't you agree?

Following the semantic relation idea where we have a word nekros which means corpse and nekroo which is dead, then the semantic relation is non-living, but what does non-living mean? A corpse is not active, not breathing etc. Aside from the disembodied element what would quality as non-living for the adjective nekroo? My sense is that nekroo can have the non-living tie only as it relates back to the corpse itself. What do you think?

I should note that "nekros" is actually a nominalised adjective, as the adjective is "nekros, nekra, nekron". The adjective means "dead", but its nominalised masculine form refers to the corpse, derived from the earlier word "nekis - νέκυς" meaning "corpse" and "dead" as well). "Nekis" is additionally a synonym of "nekiia - νέκυια", the ritual that involves the summoning of the souls from Hades.

back on topic, i think that even when most people were churchgoers many still didn't follow the bible, now that christians are more of a minority, those of us that are left are christians for a reason and so take the faith perhaps a little more seriosly then others did in the past

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

I should note that "nekros" is actually a nominalised adjective, as the adjective is "nekros, nekra, nekron". The adjective means "dead", but its nominalised masculine form refers to the corpse, derived from the earlier word "nekis - νέκυς" meaning "corpse" and "dead" as well). "Nekis" is additionally a synonym of "nekiia - νέκυια", the ritual that involves the summoning of the souls from Hades.

---

Hello,

This is really interesting. If you are saying nekros is a nominalized adjective why do these examples list the primary meaning as corpse which is a noun?

"-This is the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon: nekros , ho (of a woman, Diph.129),A. corpse, Hom., etc.: as Subst., in early writers always of mankind, nekrous sulêsete tethnêôtas Il. 6.71 ; n. eruon katatethnêôtas

-This is from the William J. Slater Lexicon to Pindar: nekros 1. corpse hepta d' epeita puran nekrôn telesthentôn Talaïonidas eipen

-This is from the Georg Autenrieth, A Homeric Dictionary: nekros : dead body, corpse; with tethnêôta, Od. 12.10; also nekrôn katatethnêôtôn"

Also, could you comment on this post: "How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't think raunch is a word any more than happ is a word. The removal of the 'y' at the end of 'raunchy' or 'happy' doesn't mean it creates a noun.

---

Indeed. If there was no root noun, then, from whence does the term 'raunchy' come?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

Indeed. If there was no root noun, then, from whence does the term 'raunchy' come?

---

Hehe, From the same land that the term happy comes from. Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hehe, From the same land that the term happy comes from. Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root.

---

It so happens that happy does have a noun root: 'hap' - something that occurs by chance. The accompanying verb is 'to happen'.

If one does not have a lot of mishaps one is happy.:jumping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It so happens that happy does have a noun root: 'hap' - something that occurs by chance. The accompanying verb is 'to happen'.

If one does not have a lot of mishaps one is happy.:jumping:

---

I stand corrected. Do you want to challenge the larger point: Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I stand corrected. Do you want to challenge the larger point: Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root?

---

No. If only because it could be disproven by minting an adjective right here and now. I.e. 'won't you take a look at this chiddy smiley::inquisitive: '

I agree with Sjakihata that 'normally, nouns are first, adjectives are derived from nouns'. Also, I think that historolinguistically nouns preceded adjectives.

But neither challenge the point.

Who Cares..Can we get back on Topics??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

This is really interesting. If you are saying nekros is a nominalized adjective why do these examples list the primary meaning as corpse which is a noun?

"-This is the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon: nekros , ho (of a woman, Diph.129),A. corpse, Hom., etc.: as Subst., in early writers always of mankind, nekrous sulêsete tethnêôtas Il. 6.71 ; n. eruon katatethnêôtas

-This is from the William J. Slater Lexicon to Pindar: nekros 1. corpse hepta d' epeita puran nekrôn telesthentôn Talaïonidas eipen

-This is from the Georg Autenrieth, A Homeric Dictionary: nekros : dead body, corpse; with tethnêôta, Od. 12.10; also nekrôn katatethnêôtôn"

---

First of all, if you 're referring to homeric (or even prior to the 5th cent. BC) meanings, then it's extremely common to see it used mainly as "corpse". For example, the Liddel-Scott entry also contains the adjective, which can be found in the works of Sophocles among others, and, later on, one can also find it in the New Testament (see the passages on resurrection; "rising from the dead" doesn't imply the existance of a corpse).

Even today the word has both meanings (dead and corpse), and when referring to dead people, one will be hard pressed to hear or read "nekros andras" ("aner nekros" in ancient Greek). Just like with the majority of such adjectives that reveal similar qualities. So we don't actually have a noun and an adjective here, but rather a single word with two uses, both based on their precursor "nekis", used mainly for "corpse", still an extension of the original word "nekiia" which doesn't have close ties with the physical form of a dead man.

Even in English, "dead" can be used as a noun, without acting as an attributive adjective. I think that most dictionaries classify it as both a noun and an adjective. And this ofcourse applies to hundreds of other words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Also, could you comment on this post: "How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?"

---

Well, I could say that the example is flawed due to reasons delined above. "Nekroo" sounds more like the neuter form of the adjective in modern Greek, not an adjectival one.

But, as one can imagine, the meaning of words doesn't always go hand-in-hand with their etymology. Also, the creation of a word doesn't necessarily follow a cognitive process.

This is made evident in multiple levels by examining the chinese hànzì, the japanese kanji or any similar writing system based on logograms. When not acting phonetically or when their basic meaning (which makes them akin to ideograms) hasn't been overly corrupted, then they can clearly reveal a part of the word creation process (this is somehow generalised, you can't directly connect verbal manifestations of a language with its written counterparts, but such examples can offer useful insights). In such systems, over the centuries, a rigidly defined material concept can be mutated in ways that will allow it to encorporate more abstract meanings.

So we have, at a basic level, the kanji 明　（MEI, MYOU/めい・みょう）, a kanji composed from 日(sun) and　月 (moon), and conveying the idea of objects that emit light, that are, therefore, bright. The same kanji is used in the adjective 明らかな　（akirakana), that by extension means apparent, unquestionable etc., which employs a more abstract meaning of bright and clear. By combining it with other morphemes, the possibilities are endless and one can't possibly fathom what extra qualities will be integrated into the core meaning of this unit in the future.