Re: Language, Religion, and an information quest (or somesuch) [Mildly OT]

Eric Christopherson wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU]On
> > Behalf Of Grandsire, C.A.
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 1999 2:43 AM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG
> > Subject: Re: Language, Religion, and an information quest (or somesuch)
> > [Mildly OT]
>
> > Axiem wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I'm not going to get into why, but now I'm trying to come up with
> > > a good word that expresses "God" or a supreme entity, etc, and I was
> > > wondering how all of you came up with that word/words for your conlangs,
> > > if you even have them?
>
> > The longest form of
> > "one" has for the Noli a mystical meaning, meaning "the Universe" or
> > "God" for religious Noli. It refers to the totality of things (as a
> > whole, not as a juxtaposition).
>
> I really like that idea, Christophe. In Dhakrathat, I used to use the word
> <tani> to refer to the few "higher" deities or spirits, and <kuna> to refer
> to all subordinate deities and spirits; there was no differentiation between
> the good and evil ones (although the religion definitely sees them as being
> either good or evil). Then I thought about using something like <Yachka>
> "one-person, he/she of one, he/she which is one, first person," for the
> supreme deity, but I never really accepted that. Eventually I hit upon the
> word [is"tSa], which I really like, but which doesn't really have an
> etymological meaning so far. Another problem with it is that I have to find
> an Old Dhak form of the name which will yield the result [is"tSa] or
> something like it in the modern language.
>
        Maybe try to relate it with <Yachka> anyway, by ways of a kind of
compounding or old and not-productive derivation. Or maybe a common
origin for the word for "one" and the word for "God", but with different
evolutions for some reasons (after all, they are not used "exactly" the
same way :) ).

> Another idea I've had is to use some sort of word root meaning "exist" but
> inflecting it in a way peculiar to just this one word -- some sort of
> inflection that would mean not just "one who exists" but possibly also
> "existence" or "one who causes to exist" or something. Is there any
> precedent for inflections used in only one, or a few, words in a language?
> Maybe I could use an archaic form which later becomes non-productive.
        Isn't what it is done in Hebbrew? I remember a discussion we had some
months ago about the origin of the tetragrammaton and of the other words
used to refer to God in Hebbrew.

--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com