Re: Looking at the Cratylus; was: nomothete

Okay, thanks, Philip.  But everybody, Philip included, what I need to know
is whether Eco has produced an error here that everybody is copying, or
whether he is copying a trend in classical studies that calls the Nomothete
a "name-giver" because of the popularity of the Cratylus.  I'm not after an
exact translation of the passage; those questions of mine are minor. My
major question, and my primary reason for putting all that Greek in front of
you (please see my original post called "Looking at the Cratylus) was to
show that Plato uses three words:

>>
nomothetus (for "lawgiver"), onomatourgon, for "name-giver or crafter," and
onoma thesthai, "to give or bestow names."
 <<

So when Muke said that I am not the only one to think that "name-giver" is a
misnomer for nomothete, and that many have "corrected" to onomatothete, I'm
wondering what it is he's referring to.  Corrected where?  Certainly not the
Cratylus? But rather writers' use of the term "nomothete" to mean
"name-giver," especially when Plato already has a word for that concept in
onoma thesthai, and in the passage below, by onomaton thetes?

"Then, my dear friend, must not the lawgiver (nomothetus) also know how to
embody in the sounds and syllables that name which is fitted by nature for
each object?" etc. etc. "Must he not make and give all his names with his
eye fixed upon the absolute or ideal name, if he is to an authoritative
giver of names? (onomaton thetes)"

This is what I think has happened.  The people who are producing Nomothete
currently to mean "name-giver", as far as I can tell (and I have only really
scoured the Web), use it with Eco in the background.  The exam question, for
instance, asks "What is Eco's notion of the Nomothete as Adam?"  or
something like that.  Reviews of his books mention nomothete.  Everyone
takes for granted that Eco is right--he's erudite, he's successful, and
"nomo" looks like Latin nomen, "name."  Why wouldn't the average reader
think nomothete is "name giver"?  Muke suggests that it is a common error,
though, preceding Eco.

OR: is Eco operating within a system known to classicists where the
nomothete of the Cratylus has come to mean "the name giver"?

Does anybody know anything about this, or should I be directed to a
classicists' list?

Thanks, those are my major questions.

Philip... can you go back to my original question?  These corrections are
helpful, but they don't address my major concerns.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: Looking at the Cratylus; was: nomothete


> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:40:02 -0500, Sally Caves <scaves@...>
> wrote:
>> Socrates: Nomothetus de soi dokei pas einai aner e o ten techne echon?
>> "Do you think every man is a lawgiver, or only he who has the skill?"
>> (I don't know how this sentence is structured, except that Nomothetus is
>> nominative. What is dokei?)
>
> My 0.5 cents:
>
> "dokei" = "to seem", I think... "dokei soi" = "it seems to you
> that...; you think (opine, consider, hold) that ..." (soi, of course,
> being the dative of the 2sg personal pronoun.)
>
> So you have the verb "einai" (to be) with the two complements "pas
> aner" (every man) and "nomothetês" (lawgiver).
>
> The second bit being "ê" = "or" followed by "ho tên technê echôn" =
> "the the skill having" = "the one having the skill".
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
> Watch the Reply-To!
>

Reply