Printable View
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
Hello,Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
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?"
Indeed. If there was no root noun, then, from whence does the term 'raunchy' come?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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 Louis VI the Fat
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: 'Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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??
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.