Re: nomothete

On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 03:29 , Sally Caves wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@...>
[snip]

>> Not as far as I know. Is there some kind of abstruse pun going on,
>> between nomothete and onomatothete? Are these words for "law" and "name"
>> cognate? And are Latin lex/legis (law) and Gk lexis/legein (words,
>> speech, speak) [forgive me if in my haste my inflections err ...]
>> cognate?
>
> My questions exactly.  Is onomatothete an actual word?
My English dictionary does not list it, but |onomatoqeths| /onomatot_hete:
s/ is attested in Greek.

> Or onomathete?
Ach!! I hope not - that would be bad fornation.

> Is he confusing nomos with onoma?
It would seem so on the face of it, if indeed he wrote the Italian for
'nonothete'

[snip]
> I can't imagine Eco making this kind of mistake (is there an Italian
> version
> of the word?),
My immediate reaction when reading your first email was: "Is it a mistake
in the translation?" But on reflection, this does not seem likely. I
assume the Italian equivalents would be _nomotete_ and _onomatotete_ which
are distinctive enough to alert even a moderately competent translator. I
would guess that Eco has the Cratylus passage in mind.

> and here I was quoting him, and thinking that we had another
> word for glossopoeist,
No - I think not.

> perhaps some kind of divine name-giver, but I was
> thrown into doubt by all the dictionary definitions of this word when I
> checked.
Quite right.

> If Eco screwed up here, I've lost a GREAT paragraph.
I think you are reading too much into 'nomothete'.
[snip]

> Then what is -thete?  "placer?" "doer"?  from Greek tithenai, "to put"?
> The
> IE dictionary gives reduplicative *dhi-dhe as the origin of this suffix in
> such words as metathesis, synthesis, prosthesis, anathema, etc. Putting or
> placing things into a district or a usage?
Yes, the root of _tithenai_ (or |tiqenai| in ASCII transliteration) is
the-. The suffix -te:s is a common one denoting "agent". _thete:s_ "one
who places" does actually occur as a word in its own right in ancient
greek, tho it is not common.

> So what Adam is doing is actually apportioning the animals?  Placing
> animals
> into categories?  (I'm hopeful of this last).
There is nothing in Genesis 2:19 - 20 to suggest that - just
straightforward naming each wild beast and each bird that JHWH brought
before him.

> Giving laws to language and names (even more hopeful)?
No, there is nothing to suggest this. I have no doubt that some people
have formulated all sorts of interpretations of this passage - but the
text has nothing more than naming these various creatures.

[snip]
> I return to And's question: logos seems to mean in Greek both "law" and
> "word."
It is not the normal word for "law". It can mean 'law' in the sense of a
law embodying the result of _logismos_ - a process of reckoning and
rationalization. _logos_ has a very wide range of meaning.

> Could nomos, too?
No. _nomos_ means "custom, usage" as well as "[statutary] law", i.e. law
drawn up by some authority, normally a human authority, but it was also
used of the laws of God as defined in the Septuagint.

> Did Eco mean logothete?  I looked that up, and
> unfortunately it meant a petty accountant.
It does. One meaning of _logos_ is 'reckoning, accounting'

> The IE root for L. lex ("law") is also the root for Gr. logos: *leg: "to
> collect; with derivatives meaning to speak."  Could the same thing have
> been
> going on with nomos/onoma?
As Charlie has pointed out, the words _nomos_ and _onoma/onuma_ (depending
on dialect) are not cognate.
==============================================

On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 03:50 , Muke Tever wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:13:07 -0500, Sally Caves <scaves@...>
> wrote:
[snip]
>> Is Eco using the word incorrectly?  I've always understood this to mean
>> nomos + theticos.  Is there any context outside of Eco's use of it here
>> where this word means giving the name?
>
> Yes.  In Plato's dialogue "Cratylus" it is used it this way.
>
>   << Socrates:
>      Perhaps, then, one artisan of names will be good, and another bad?
>      Cratylus:
>      Yes.
>      Socrates:
>      The name of such an artisan was lawgiver?  [nomoqeths]
>      Cratylus:
>      Yes.   >>
Yes - and I am sure this is why Eco is using 'nomothete'.

[snip]
> But it seems that you're not the only one to think it a mistake, as
> apparently "onomatothete" [onomatoqeths] was often written as a correction
> of this word.
Yes - and there is certainly variant reading in manuscripts in Plato's
Charmenides 175b, where Saocrates, Charmenides & Kritias are trying to
define |swfrosunh| 'sophrosyne' - "moderation, temperance, prudence".

"For in every way we are defeated and we cannot find upon whatever of
existing things the nomothete/ onmomatothete placed [etheto] this name
'moderation'."
==============================================

On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 06:40 , Sally Caves wrote:

[snip]
> Okay, I've had a look at this.  With great good fortune, I found my Loeb
> Classic Cratylus, and I have transliterated the Greek (probably badly)
Strictly, what you have done is to _transcribe_ the Greek, not to
_transliterate_ it. Transliteration is the one-to-one conversion of a
grapheme from one system to another. This is what Muke was doing when he
wrote |nomoqeths|; each Roman letter corresponds to a Greek letter, e.g.
|g| corresponds to 'theta' [t_h] and |h| to 'eta' (long-e). "nonothetes"
on the other hand is a trancription, since the one Greek letter theta has
become two Roman letters |th| and both epsilon and eta are written |e|.
[snip]
> Sorry for the lack of diacritical marks; perhaps Greek experts can correct
> me:
I do not think there any reason to do this. Yes, there is the odd error,
but those of us who know ancient greek can follow your transcription, and
those who do not know ancient Greek will be none the wiser however
accurate a transcription or transliteration is give    :)

[snip]
> "Then it is not for every man, Hermogenes, to give names (onoma thesthai)
> ,
> but for him who may be called the name-maker (onomatourgon); and he, it
> appears, is the lawgiver (nomothetus), who is of all the artisans among
> men
> the rarest."
>
> (This seems like an argument for prescriptive grammarians!)
Absolutely! there is no 'seems' about it. (I do not BTW agree with Plato)
>
> What this tells me is that the Greek word for lawgiver has become
> conflated
> or confused with onomatourgon,
_onomatourgon_ BTW is the accusative; the nominative is _onomatourgos_.

> simply because of the identification of the
> lawgiver with the namegiver.
No, I do not think there is any confusion - see below.

> But technically, nomothete is "law-giver" and
> "onomatothete" or "onomatourge"  is "namegiver."
The anglification of _onomatourgos_ would de 'onomaturge' via the
Latinized form. _onomaturgus_. The Greek words _omoatothetes_
|onomatogeths| and _onomatourgos_ are not synonyms, only the first is
"namegiver". Fowler is correct in translating _onomatourgos_ as
"name-maker" - "name-fashioner" might be better. A 'onomatothete; merely
bestows a name, like caling his house "Dunromin", but a 'onomaturge'
actually creates names, makes up names.

But you are right to refer to prescriptive grammarians. The point is that
Plato recognized that names are not inherent properties of things but are
man-made conventions, that is they "nomoi". In a civilized society nomoi
must be given authority. The reason why the 'name-giver' is called
_nomothete_ is that he is laying down what name is to be conventionally
attached to each thing, concept etc. He is _prescribing_ the correct name.

What Socrates seems to be saying is that it is not for everyone to go
around naming things as s/he thinks fit. It is only the person who has the
skill to fashion names (the onomaturge) who should act as law-giver in
prescribing the correct name for things.

> My question is this: should I follow Eco in this identification or should
> I
> challenge him?
I would hesitate in challenging Eco unless I was very certain of my ground.
  I think you are referring to the passage in "Languages in Paradise" where
Adam is giving names to all the wild animals of the earth & the birds of
heaven. The text in Genesis says quite clearly: "and whatever name Adam
gave any living creature, that was the name of it." In other words, Adam
is a _nomothete_ as he is giving the "customary usage" (nomos) by which
each creature has a name. This is a prescriptive act, therefore the act of
a nomothete.

Eco goes on to consider verse 20 and discuss whether Adam makes up the
name himself (that is, whether Adam is a _onomaturge_) or is whether Adam
has been given some sort spiritual insight and is giving each its own
intrinsic, extralinguistic name which is due to each creature. In the
latter case Adam would be a mere _ononatothete_ and not a _onomatuge_ -
but either way, he was a _nomothete_ - if you see what I mean   :)

I note Eco refers to "nominibus suis" which is in the Vulgate version of
verse 20:
Appellavitque Adam nominibus suis cuncta animantia, et universa volatilia
caeli, et omnes bestias terrae.
And Adam call all living things by their own names: both all the flying
creatures of the sky, and all the beasts of the earth.

But I notice the Septuagint has nothing corresponding to "nominibus":
Kai ekalesen Adam onomata pasi tois kthnesi, kai pasi tois peteinois tou
ouranou, kai pasi tois qhriois tou agrou.
And Adam summoned names for all the domestic animals, and for all the
winged creatures of the sky, and for all wild beasts of the country-side.

I wonder what the Hebrew has. Hopefully Steg or Isaac will enlighten us.

> Do you know of any others besides Eco that use nomothete as
> "namegiver" or is he alone in this identification?  Is it European?  Is
> it a
> "Greek" thing?  a "Plato" thing?
A Plato thing - but the _prescriptive_ linguistic approach has been the
European approach until, I think, the 20th century.

>  I see in the following pages that
> "lawgiver" has now supplanted the term "name creator": "Then, my dear
> friend, must not the lawgiver 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)"  No, I guess I'm wrong.  But the identification is
> certainly there.  Any others want to weigh in on this?
>
> Wow, this is a fabulous text for the conlanger.
But only if you have the Platonic view of things, Plato believed that our
world was a mere shadow the 'real word'. The true 'things in themselves'
have an extramundane & eternal existense. There can no name creator. The
onomaturge is an artisan who who fashions words in the same way that a
carpenter fashions tables and chair. But the latter, according to Plato,
does so because he 'remembers' the true Form of Chair or Table which his
soul contemplated before being incarnate in its current incarnation. The
really skilled craftsman was the one who best remembered the true,
eternnal Forms. Likewise the best person for laying dawn the law by which
we should name things, is the person who fashions the names because he can
fit the sounds and syllables to their true, eternal names.

But to return to what term you should use, my answer is that it depends
upon context and what meaning you want to convey. As I see it:
nomothete - one who lays down the law or convention (by which we behave,
name things etc).
onomatothete - one who gives a name to something (parents do this to
children).
onomaturge - one who creates or fashions a name.

Hopefully, conlangers are onomaturges    :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply