Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

One more thing about version 5

Expand Messages
  • Kadlin Waltheofsdottir
    A couple of questions/comments on the beginner course: 1) I forgot to mention that based on reviews I have read elsewhere, I have added Simek s Dictionary of
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      A couple of questions/comments on the beginner course:

      1) I forgot to mention that based on reviews I have read elsewhere, I
      have added Simek's "Dictionary of Northern Mythology" to the
      recommended reading list. Any objections?

      2) I'd like to add something about the pronunciation of thorn and
      eth, but I'm not entirely clear on it myself. (Again, because I am
      "solitary," there is no one to correct my pronunciation if I get it
      wrong.) I propose to add the following to the end of the "intro" for
      the glossaries. *Please* let me know if I've got it wrong!

      You may be unfamiliar with the characters thorn (uppercase=Þ,
      lowercase=þ) and eth (uppercase=Ð, lowercase=ð) which some
      authors of materials suggested by this course used to spell certain
      heathen terms of Old Norse or Old English origin, as well as the
      names of some modern Icelanders. Both characters are pronounced "th";
      however, thorn (þ) usually is the "voiced" version while eth
      (ð) is the voiceless version. For example, if you were using
      these letters to write the words "other" and "thin" you would write
      them "oþer" and "ðin". Various authors transliterate these
      characters in different ways: either may appear as "th", but eth also
      occasionally shows up as "d" or "dh". As an aside on the history of
      handwriting, in the middle ages thorn was sometimes written as a "y"
      with a dot over it-- which is where such modern monstrosities as "ye
      olde candy shoppe" come from.

      --Kadlin
    • Ann Sheffield
      Kadlin Waltheofsdottir wrote: For example, if you were using ... It s the other way around - eth is the sound in other , thorn in thin . -Groa
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Kadlin Waltheofsdottir wrote:
        For example, if you were using
        > these letters to write the words "other" and "thin" you would write
        > them "oþer" and "ðin".

        It's the other way around - "eth" is the sound in "other", "thorn" in
        "thin".

        -Groa
      • tsdoughty@aol.com
        ... Hi Kaidlin, It s actually the other way around: the character thorn is unvoiced, just as in the English word thorn , while the ð character is voiced, as
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > You may be unfamiliar with the characters thorn (uppercase=Þ,
          > lowercase=þ) and eth (uppercase=Ð, lowercase=ð) which some
          > authors of materials suggested by this course used to spell certain
          > heathen terms of Old Norse or Old English origin, as well as the
          > names of some modern Icelanders. Both characters are pronounced "th";
          > however, thorn (þ) usually is the "voiced" version while eth
          > (ð) is the voiceless version. For example, if you were using
          > these letters to write the words "other" and "thin" you would write
          >

          Hi Kaidlin,

          It's actually the other way around: the character thorn is unvoiced, just as
          in the English word "thorn", while the ð character is voiced, as in the name
          Oðin and the word "other". Otherwise, good explanation and good work, as
          usual.

          Tim



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kadlin Waltheofsdottir
          ... Thanks! Just proved the 50/50 90/10 rule again. (If you have a 50% chance of guessing right, you will guess wrong 90% of the time.) Here s another
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Tim Doughty wrote:
            >
            > Hi Kaidlin,
            >
            > It's actually the other way around: the character thorn is
            > unvoiced, just as in the English word "thorn", while the ð
            > character is voiced, as in the name Oðin and the word "other".

            Thanks! Just proved the 50/50 90/10 rule again. (If you have a 50%
            chance of guessing right, you will guess wrong 90% of the time.)

            Here's another question for you all: in the interest of being
            consistant, should the term "gods" be capitalized or not?

            --Kadlin
          • Ann Sheffield
            ... My preference would be for _not_ capitalizing - it reminds me too much of the God-as-proper-name usage of Christianity. I also like the form god/desses
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Kadlin Waltheofsdottir wrote:

              > Here's another question for you all: in the interest of being
              > consistant, should the term "gods" be capitalized or not?
              >

              My preference would be for _not_ capitalizing - it reminds me too much
              of the God-as-proper-name usage of Christianity. I also like the form
              god/desses because it more explicitly includes all the deities - how
              does everyone else feel about this?

              Wassail,

              Groa
            • tsdoughty@aol.com
              ... Whoa, good one! I m sure that question could occupy any e-list for at least a month! I won t weigh in with an opinion because it just doesn t matter to
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Kadlin wrote:

                > Here's another question for you all: in the interest of being
                > consistant, should the term "gods" be capitalized or not?

                Whoa, good one! I'm sure that question could occupy any e-list for at least
                a month! I won't weigh in with an opinion because it just doesn't matter to
                me, but we should be consistent. I usually use lower case myself.

                Tim
              • tsdoughty@aol.com
                ... I don t use this form because it seems a little artificial; I d rather write out gods and goddesses . But as this can also be cumbersome it does usually
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Groa writes:

                  > I also like the form
                  > god/desses because it more explicitly includes all the deities - how
                  >

                  I don't use this form because it seems a little artificial; I'd rather write
                  out 'gods and goddesses'. But as this can also be cumbersome it does usually
                  get shortened to 'gods' to stand for deities of any sex, in accordance with
                  normal English usage of all similar nouns. I don't have a problem with it,
                  but then I'm a man.

                  Tim


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ann Sheffield
                  ... When we discussed this book before (in the context of the Intermediate course), the decision was recommended - yes; required - no (because of cost). I
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Kadlin Waltheofsdottir wrote:
                    >
                    > A couple of questions/comments on the beginner course:
                    >
                    > 1) I forgot to mention that based on reviews I have read elsewhere, I
                    > have added Simek's "Dictionary of Northern Mythology" to the
                    > recommended reading list. Any objections?
                    >

                    When we discussed this book before (in the context of the Intermediate
                    course), the decision was recommended - yes; required - no (because of
                    cost). I think that would be fine for the Beginner's course, also.
                    It's certainly a great book for someone interested in heathenry to have.

                    Wassail,

                    Groa
                  • Ann Sheffield
                    ... Is _is_ artificial, of course, but at least its reasonably pronouncable. I don t suppose you d go along with goddesses to stand for deities of any sex ,
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      tsdoughty@... wrote:
                      >
                      > Groa writes:
                      >
                      > > I also like the form
                      > > god/desses because it more explicitly includes all the deities - how
                      > >
                      >
                      > I don't use this form because it seems a little artificial;

                      Is _is_ artificial, of course, but at least its reasonably
                      pronouncable.

                      I don't suppose you'd go along with "goddesses" to stand for "deities of
                      any sex", much as Miss Manners suggests the business salutation "Ladies"
                      (in which, as she says, the gentlemen may assume they are included)?
                      Not that I'm really suggesting this, but I hope you see the point.

                      We could duck the issue by using "deities" all the time, but that gets
                      repetitive and also sounds oddly Greco-Roman to me. Still, it may be
                      the best solution.

                      To get back to the meat of the course - this weekend I will actually
                      have time to sit down and read through all of Kadlin's praiseworthy
                      labor and expect to have more substantive contributions to make in a day
                      or two.

                      Wassail,

                      Groa
                    • tsdoughty@aol.com
                      ... But when pronounced it sounds like goddesses , which is equally exclusive. ... I do see the point, and of course I would go along with that. In a case
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Is _is_ artificial, of course, but at least its reasonably
                        > pronouncable.

                        But when pronounced it sounds like "goddesses", which is equally exclusive.

                        > I don't suppose you'd go along with "goddesses" to stand for "deities of
                        > any sex", much as Miss Manners suggests the business salutation "Ladies"
                        > (in which, as she says, the gentlemen may assume they are included)?
                        >

                        I do see the point, and of course I would go along with that. In a case like
                        this, unless we adopt a 3rd term, as you suggest, one either has to use the
                        male or female form to denote a mixture. By default we use the male term,
                        but I believe that's arbitrary, and tiresome to many. I have no problem with
                        switching to the female term to denote both, just as I believe women should
                        keep their own name when marrying rather than take their husband's, but I
                        don't think society at large will go along, and it will increase confusion
                        rather than decrease it.

                        Tim


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Kadlin Waltheofsdottir
                        ... Of course, this begs the question, do the gods & goddesses actually *have* gender in the usual sense of the term? But that is probably beyond the scope of
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ann Sheffield wrote:
                          >
                          > I don't suppose you'd go along with "goddesses" to stand for
                          > "deities of any sex", much as Miss Manners suggests the business
                          > salutation "Ladies" (in which, as she says, the gentlemen may
                          > assume they are included)?
                          >
                          > Not that I'm really suggesting this, but I hope you see the point.

                          Of course, this begs the question, do the gods & goddesses actually
                          *have* gender in the usual sense of the term? But that is probably
                          beyond the scope of this list.

                          For myself, I have never had a problem assuming that "gods" means
                          both gods & goddesses, just as aviators now means men & women pilots.
                          Annoyingly, in English, the "feminine" version of many nouns gives a
                          certain sense of dimunition: "aviatrix", "cleaning lady" vs.
                          "janitor" etc. My impulse is to apply the "male" version to all.
                          (But then, I am also in favor of dodging the whole Mrs./Miss./Ms.
                          issue by just using "M." for everyone, men & women both, but I doubt
                          it will catch on.) I don't have a big problem with "gods" when gods
                          and goddesses is too awkward-- I find god/desses too unwieldy, it
                          stops my eye when I read it.

                          --Kadlin
                        • Ann Sheffield
                          ... But, we re writing text to be read rather than heard. When I read, I hear the words in my head, so it s important to me that the words be at least somewhat
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            tsdoughty@... wrote:
                            >
                            > > Is _is_ artificial, of course, but at least its reasonably
                            > > pronouncable.
                            >
                            > But when pronounced it sounds like "goddesses", which is equally exclusive.

                            But, we're writing text to be read rather than heard.

                            When I read, I hear the words in my head, so it's important to me that
                            the words be at least somewhat pronouncable. At the same time, the
                            slash in god/desses creates a sort of mental hesitation for me that
                            makes it different from just thinking "goddesses". In other words, when
                            I read god/desses, it really does communicate the same thing to me as
                            "gods and goddesses", and that's why I like it.

                            As for what society will go along with: I kept my name when I married,
                            and I find that society deals with it just fine.

                            Wassail,

                            Groa
                          • Lorrie Wood
                            ... It won t catch on because M is already the abbreviation for Madame in French, and enjoys some reflection in English already. Strike out in a new
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:04:45PM -0000, Kadlin Waltheofsdottir wrote:
                              >
                              > (But then, I am also in favor of dodging the whole Mrs./Miss./Ms.
                              > issue by just using "M." for everyone, men & women both, but I doubt
                              > it will catch on.) I don't have a big problem with "gods" when gods

                              It won't catch on because M is already the abbreviation for
                              'Madame' in French, and enjoys some reflection in English already.
                              Strike out in a new direction, perhaps, with something like 'Mer' which
                              has no previous meaning.

                              However, previous and ongoing attempts to revise the personal
                              pronoun set to include a non-objectifying non-gendered set (zie or
                              sie for subjective and on from there: I've seen two tries) aren't
                              meeting with much success.

                              Besides, if *you* get to catch on, then *my* desire to bring
                              second-person-familiar back into English needs to catch on toooooooo!

                              -- Lorrie
                            • Kadlin Waltheofsdottir
                              ... This morning after looking over what I posted last night, I noticed a few errors. (I must have been sleepier than I thought!) So, here is version 5a,
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ann Sheffield wrote:
                                > To get back to the meat of the course - this weekend I will actually
                                > have time to sit down and read through

                                This morning after looking over what I posted last night, I noticed a
                                few errors. (I must have been sleepier than I thought!) So, here is
                                version 5a, which is the same as version 5 except that it has some
                                minor corrections and has the pronunciation guide for eth and thorn.

                                http://www.egroups.com/files/Asatru-U/Beginner/AUnovice%2Bv_5a.htm

                                Have fun.

                                --K

                                P.S. In a few days I think I will clear out some of the intermediate
                                versions of the outline from Asatru-U's file area-- it is starting to
                                get confusing.
                              • Ann Sheffield
                                ... A completely irrelevant comment - I find it fascinating the way that a true second-person-plural continually re-asserts itself in American English - y all,
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Lorrie Wood wrote:

                                  > Besides, if *you* get to catch on, then *my* desire to bring
                                  > second-person-familiar back into English needs to catch on toooooooo!
                                  >

                                  A completely irrelevant comment - I find it fascinating the way that a
                                  true second-person-plural continually re-asserts itself in American
                                  English - y'all, you'uns, and the like.

                                  OK, I'll get back to working on the Asatru course now...

                                  -Groa
                                • Lorrie Wood
                                  ... I did, too -- and while society s fine with it (and it meant I didn t have to file change-of-name paperwork), my family s older members still occasionally
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:04:45PM -0500, Ann Sheffield wrote:
                                    >
                                    > As for what society will go along with: I kept my name when I married,
                                    > and I find that society deals with it just fine.

                                    I did, too -- and while society's fine with it (and it
                                    meant I didn't have to file change-of-name paperwork), my family's
                                    older members still occasionally slip. 8-)

                                    -- Lorrie Stalnaker just doesn't fall prettily on the ear.
                                  • Kadlin Waltheofsdottir
                                    ... Actually, in French: Mr. = M. (Monsieur) Mrs. = Mme. (Madame) Miss. = Mlle. (Madamoiselle) --K
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Lorrie Wood wrote:
                                      > It won't catch on because M is already the abbreviation for
                                      > 'Madame' in French, and enjoys some reflection in English already.

                                      Actually, in French:
                                      Mr. = M. (Monsieur)
                                      Mrs. = Mme. (Madame)
                                      Miss. = Mlle. (Madamoiselle)

                                      --K
                                    • Lorrie Wood
                                      ... Is it? My mistake, if so. It s been awhile. That wasn t the point, the point was that it s already in use and wide circulation. 8-) -- Lorrie
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:31:16PM -0800, Arlie Stephens wrote:
                                        >
                                        > *looks confused* M. is Monsieur. At least, that's what I remember.

                                        Is it? My mistake, if so. It's been awhile. That wasn't the
                                        point, the point was that it's already in use and wide circulation. 8-)

                                        -- Lorrie
                                      • Arlie Stephens
                                        ... *looks confused* M. is Monsieur. At least, that s what I remember. -- Arlie (Arlie Stephens arlie@worldash.org)
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:12:10PM -0800, Lorrie Wood wrote:
                                          >
                                          > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:04:45PM -0000, Kadlin Waltheofsdottir wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > (But then, I am also in favor of dodging the whole Mrs./Miss./Ms.
                                          > > issue by just using "M." for everyone, men & women both, but I doubt
                                          > > it will catch on.) I don't have a big problem with "gods" when gods
                                          >
                                          > It won't catch on because M is already the abbreviation for
                                          > 'Madame' in French, and enjoys some reflection in English already.
                                          > Strike out in a new direction, perhaps, with something like 'Mer' which
                                          > has no previous meaning.

                                          *looks confused* M. is Monsieur. At least, that's what I remember.


                                          --
                                          Arlie

                                          (Arlie Stephens arlie@...)
                                        • Ann Sheffield
                                          ... Hey, maybe it _will_ work in English - our French is so bad, we ll happily apply M. to either gender! -Groa
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Arlie Stephens wrote:
                                            >

                                            > > It won't catch on because M is already the abbreviation for
                                            > > 'Madame' in French, and enjoys some reflection in English already.
                                            > > Strike out in a new direction, perhaps, with something like 'Mer' which
                                            > > has no previous meaning.
                                            >
                                            > *looks confused* M. is Monsieur. At least, that's what I remember.
                                            >

                                            Hey, maybe it _will_ work in English - our French is so bad, we'll
                                            happily apply M. to either gender!

                                            -Groa
                                          • Kadlin Waltheofsdottir
                                            ... remember. ... 8-) ... True, but on the other hand it is probably more likely that English-speaking men will accept an honorific also used for men in France
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Nov 10, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Lorrie Wood wrote:
                                              > Arlie Stephens wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > *looks confused* M. is Monsieur. At least, that's what I
                                              remember.
                                              >
                                              > Is it? My mistake, if so. It's been awhile. That wasn't the
                                              > point, the point was that it's already in use and wide circulation.
                                              8-)
                                              >
                                              > -- Lorrie

                                              True, but on the other hand it is probably more likely that
                                              English-speaking men will accept an honorific also used for men in
                                              France then they would accept an honorific also used for *women* in
                                              France-- and I think English-speaking women might not care as much
                                              either way.

                                              But enough about my strange political views. :-)

                                              --Kadlin
                                              (Who isn't married, but who vowed at the age of 10 never to change her
                                              name if she did get married-- and her boyfriend knows it.)
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.