Re: CHAT: Homo Sapiens (was: fiery spirits)

Ray Brown scripsit:

> Yes, the problem seems to be rather with 'nature'.  It's a reminder that
> abstract ideas don't always translate neatly. Greek 'physis', Latin 'natura' and
> English 'nature' (and whatever words are used Armenian & Syriac) may have a good
> deal of common meaning, but there will not be 100% mapping. The different 10% or
> 20% can be important.
Indeed.  The Assyrian Church of the East (aka "Nestorians", though they
don't like this tag) affirms that Christ has two natures and two qnome,
but what qnome may be in terms of Greco-Latin christology is starkly
unknowable to the merely human mind.  :-)  "An individual, but never
personalized, concrete nature" doesn't tell me much.

I meant to mention last time the interesting contrast between the
post-Vatican-II formulations of the Catechism and the various
rapprochement documents, and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen), which does not scruple to talk of
schismatics and heretics, "conversion to the Catholic Faith", and other
triumphalist language.  It's good to see this change.

> Conlangs can do this very neatly (conlangs aspiring to be auxlangs IMO
> ought to do this neatly - but maybe that argument should be left for 'tha
> other list'  :)
I don't think that in the year 2003 that is a particularly controversial
conclusion, at least for newly created auxlangs.  Existing auxlangs may of
course and do have other conventions.

--
"Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child        John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          jcowan@reutershealth.com
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it."             http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

Reply