Individual

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

 

You said:

"Incidentally we keep using the word 'individual' to

mean separate. And this has been the common usage for

a long time but there is a sense that we may have

turned the word on its head a long time ago. 'In-' as

a prefix often means 'not'. So individual could mean

also 'not divisible.' Now there's an idea to play

with."

 

That's fascinating, and one I hadn't come across before. And I see that it

is not speculation either, as your wording suggested that it might be.

Checking my on-line Oxford pop-up, I get the following:

 

"ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense indivisible): from medieval Latin

individualis, from Latin individuus, from in- 'not' + dividuus 'divisible'

(from dividere 'to divide')."

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

>

> "ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense

> indivisible): from medieval Latin

> individualis, from Latin individuus, from in- 'not'

> + dividuus 'divisible'

> (from dividere 'to divide')."

 

Good Evening Dennis,

I came across this some time ago when playing with

Skeat's etymological dictionary.

The common notion is that words freely change their

meanings from time to time. There is plenty of

evidence for that. So the questions then must be, 'Do

sounds encapsulate a meaning that is ever the same

while their popular usage changes in meaning?'

'Have mantras a permanent meaning?'

What of the mahavakyas?

 

All this was being discussed prior to YAska but you

can see why the Vedic demand for purity in metre and

pronunciation stressed.

As Confucius says:

'If what is said is not what is meant, what ought to

be done is not done, morals and art decay and the

people stand about in confusion.'

That is one of the Analects but I cannot remember the

exact ref.....maybe 13.

 

Long live individuality

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

=====

‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

> --- Dennis Waite <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> >

 

So the questions then must be, 'Do

> sounds encapsulate a meaning that is ever the same

> while their popular usage changes in meaning?'

> 'Have mantras a permanent meaning?'

> What of the mahavakyas?

>

> All this was being discussed prior to YAska but you

> can see why the Vedic demand for purity in metre and

> pronunciation stressed.

> As Confucius says:

> 'If what is said is not what is meant, what ought to

> be done is not done, morals and art decay and the

> people stand about in confusion.'

> That is one of the Analects but I cannot remember the

> exact ref.....maybe 13.

>

> Long live individuality

 

 

Namaste,

 

That is indeed so! More on Sound and Meaning at:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap14.htm

 

[Why 'shrutis' have to be heard/learnt from a 'shrotriya'].

 

Confucius Analects, Part 13, is the correct reference:

 

http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.3.3.html

 

"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the

truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of

things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

 

"When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music

do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish,

punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not

properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

 

"Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he

uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be

carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just

that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder