representative?

Bad idea to include stuff like this in a question.

Cannot accept your meaning as it is incorrect.

Demeter was supposed to cause the seasons.

What's this? My mentioned sentence wasn't this but "Demeter (or ANYBODY ELSE) is the ... of the nature (or something else).

Then talk about it in an own topic, sorry. But my question, as a matter of fact, is only that if somebody represents something then is he/she its the representative? (Or epitome or representant or something else?)

I believe the word you are looking for is 'symbol'. A representative is a delegate - a person who represents a company or a country or a group of people.

Thank you. I had a hunch like this, that was just the thing I would like to get an answer. "Represents" is ok, but neither "represenative" or "representant" is right in this case. At least now I know that "symbol" is much better, however I think that nor that is perfect. Well, that lengthy explanation at the beginning of my topic served to express the notion that D. (or anybody else in other examples) is more than a symbol. At least I think we can say that the lion is the symbol of bravery, or a fox is that of wiliness, and they are made symbol by people. But Demeter, according to the meaning of the myth, is a real embodyment of nature. So embodiment is better. I thought epitome is a similar word, or am I mistaken?

Epitome is like quintessence.

A good dictionary is always helpful.

I’m sure I use the best English-Hungarian and H-E. dictionary. You could think it is simpler for me too to look into it instead of disturbing other people. But even the best existing dictionary can’t be perfect.
I thought that one of the offered equivalents of the Hungarian word would be right. I mean it doesn’t offeres equivalents for the above case. Yes, one of this equivalent is “representative,” but with the examples "House of Representatives", "district r.", "government r." and "sole r.-s of a firm," and these show a very narrow possibility. As Contrex showed, we really can’t adopt this word for the required case. But nor the word “symbol” as I mentioned. And not the word epitome, as you possibly really rightly said, and thank you for it.
Then how tho mention, suppose, the angels in some religious stories. First I would said they are the representatives of God. (Because God can't physically walk here and there on the scene.) But I don’t know how similar their role to that of depuites. However, it is about representing them. Well, very simply: what is the noun used for the case representing something (for. e.g. nature), generally, not in political meaning.

I'll come back to this later. being short of time this morning.
I would however suggest that you get a good English dictionary to help in your work/ understanding. Two-language translator's dictionaries have their limitations. And English is a huge (and fast-changing) language.

A noun: symbol

a verb: to represent, depict, suggest....

Well, it seems to me that the only word I could use in such a case is “embodiment.” The meaning of all the other mentioned word is very far from what I would like to express. However, I have some doubts even concerning the usage of “embodiment.” My problem is the following. It is clear that we can say that somebody is the embodiment of kindness or that of wisdom or I could mention any concept. However, nature is the entirety of living beings and other palpable things, or to be more understandable, let me say (not about Demeter but somebody else): “this goddess is the embodiment of vegetation/flora.” Plants are palpable. Or I could mention Mother Earth, who appears in different myths in a body of a woman, besides being Earth itself. In real life, one can’t have two different shapes at the same time, but it isn’t so in the world of myths, do you understand what I’m talking about? So when somebody, so to say, bears a second body, could he/she is the embodiment of this or that? Or maybe incarnation? Well, I don’t really know what is “incarnation,” not “reincarnation.” The mentioned case it would be fit into is not changing a shape for another one but, but having two ones at the same time.

I'd rather use this term:

I understand you. But as I see, “personification” is about the work of mythographers, just like “symbol.” Janus or others are personificated by people. But in the plot of a myth, these people don’t act, I hope you understand. I mean once these stories was believed, and those people couldn’t say that we personified this or that as Janus or as Demeter. But they said that this and that had happened. And I would like to express the things by seeing the things which so to say “happened.” I don’t think that if once those people was asked about Janus, they said that we pesonificated the transitional spaces…”, but there was originally some myth in which he represented two very different things, for e.g. life and non-existence, and therefore I (KaJe), who suppose something like this, would say that: Maybe he once represented two worlds at the same time; our world, and that of spirits. Yes, I think it’s a good example. So I wonder if there is a word for insert into the following sentence. He may had been the … of the two worlds at the same time.

I'm not sure, but this is quite interesting.

Embodiment? Exemplar? Personification? Representation? Probably not incorporation. I'll be interested to see how this turns out.

Thanks but now it isn’t up on me. I’m not English-speaking, I don’t know what incarnation or exemplar or incorporation means. And I didn’t think that I asked something difficult. But if you’re really interested in it, just see the following because that is the most I can say.
Once in Vanuatu, people used to do the following process. They wound a red thread around a round stone and stuck owl-feathers into it, making a magical model of the sun. Their intention was making the sun, or rather light, triumph over darkness. It’s important that the feathers was originally those of an owl because owls represented darkness. (And light comes from darkness, isn’t it?) It was so because these birds are active during night. In other words, they are the birds of darkness.
However, I wouldn’t say they were the symbol of darkness. Because a symbol is just a symbol. Anybody can say that this or that is a symbol of this or that, it doesn’t mean any magical relation between them. I too can say that the owl is a symbol of darkness, but if I shot an owl, it wouldn’t mean any triumph over darkness.
And I wouldn’t say owls were the embodiment or personification of darkness. There are mythical birds like this: a huge dark bird, its eye is the moon, the stars are on its back, etc.. An owl isn’t like this. It is simply in relation with night, with darkness.
I wouldn’t say it is its quintessence or exemplar. But it is in relation, in real relation with darkness, which isn’t palpable, but an owl or its feathers is/are. Therefore the best thing I can say, I think, that for those people, the owl represented darkness. Do you understand? If you understand, you may tell me what was an owl, i.e. a … of darkness. And thanks for your attention.

I'll come back to this later, but I think you answered it very well yourself, in the following:





In this ceremony, the owl is taken to be a representation of darkness.

I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that.

No, I didn’t say “representation.” Actually, the whole of my question was directed to get to know how to transform “representing” into a noun.
I made attempts with “representative” and with “representant,” and seeing that it isn’t work, I tried different words.
But I didn’t think about “representation,” thinking that it means a picture or a sculpture, or a performance, or something similar, and these are very far from the said meaning. All these are things made my people. But an owl is an animal, a living being. Do you say seriously that it can be a representation of something?

Yes. If it intended to represent something, it is a representation.

It wasn't easy but the point is the result. Thanks very much!