Reply
Sat 15 May, 2004 02:55 pm
I'm just curious. The word divine is remarkably similar to the word divide. The world evolves through division, and so it is divine... (..?..) I'm not saying there's a connection, just that it is strange... Am I making any sense?
'divide' evolves from dividere (= prefex 'dis-' + videre) while 'divine' evolves from 'divus' (e.g. "Divus Augustus") - completely different.
And we must remember that "devine" can come as a noun (a religious authority or adept--?), an adjective (a devine object) and a verb (to devine the future).
Cyracuz, while not technically related, your word-play makes sense to me. Divinity can indeed be divisive, and to divide isn't necessarily divine, especially when it comes to a really great dessert that you just don't wan't to share. So, I like your take on this concept, even if it may not be technically correct.
we could prove it if we can find an "Andy Divide"!
and do a DNA test! :wink:
Seems we are thinking along similar lines, cav. It is not final proof I am after, only inspiration to continue living in ignorance...
By the way, are we one hundred percent certain that the origins of these words are different. "dividere" and "divus" are given as the roots of these words, but, in turn, what are the roots of those words? Latin was not the first language ever spoken by man...
Cyracuz wrote:Seems we are thinking along similar lines, cav. It is not final proof I am after, only inspiration to continue living in ignorance...
By the way, are we one hundred percent certain that the origins of these words are different. "dividere" and "divus" are given as the roots of these words, but, in turn, what are the roots of those words? Latin was not the first language ever spoken by man...
Well yes, that is true, but these words just happen to have Latin derivations. I sometimes wonder if it is really outside forces and the growth of language, especially pneumotically, that leads to a combination of sound and meaning that redefines the original words themselves.
Cyracuz wrote:By the way, are we one hundred percent certain that the origins of these words are different. "dividere" and "divus" are given as the roots of these words, but, in turn, what are the roots of those words? Latin was not the first language ever spoken by man...
Quote:divide (v.) - c.1374, from L. dividere "to force apart, cleave, distribute," from dis- "apart" + -videre "to separate," from PIE base *widh- "to separate," related to widow. Mathematical sense is from c.1425. The noun meaning "watershed, separation between river valleys" is first recorded 1807. Divider "partition or screen," especially in a room, is from 1959. Divide and rule (1602) translates L. divide et impera, a maxim of Machiavelli.
dividend - c.1477, from M.Fr. dividende "a number divided by another," from L. dividendum "thing to be divided," neut. gerundive of dividere (see divide). Sense of "portion of interest on a loan, stock, etc." is from 1690.
divine (adj.) - c.1305 (implied in divinity), from O.Fr. devin, from L. divinus "of a god," from divus "a god," related to deus "god, deity," from PIE *deiwos, also the root of words for "sky" and "day." Weakened sense of "excellent" had evolved by c.1470. Divinity is from c.1300.
divine (v.) - "to conjure, to guess," originally "to make out by supernatural insight," early 14c., from L. divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant "soothsayer." Hence, divination (c.1374), from O.Fr., from L. divinationem (nom. divinatio) "the power of foreseeing, prediction," from divinatus, pp. of divinare, lit. "to be inspired by a god." Divining rod (or wand) attested from 1656.
Since I've no time to look it up in an offline Latin ethymology at the (university) library, just take these notices from what I've at home.
(Might well be, some internet sources are better then the above - but sonce I'm on the way to the airport ....)
Latin was brought to Italy about 1000 BC by Indo-Germanic immigrants from Northern Europe.
It began, as all languages do, as an isolated local tongue of a small territory on the Tiber River called Latium.
As the people in Latium developed into an organized community, the city of Rome was eventually founded in, according to legend, 753 BC.
Later, Latin was heavily influenced by t non-Indo-Germanic Etruscans.
Over time, it was also affected by the Celtic migrations and their dialects from Northern Italy and by the dominant regional culture of the Greeks.
(different off-line/online sources)
Aye, but before these events occured there were other languages on wich the new language, latin, was based. It had to be so, in the same way that most languages spoken in northern europe today evolved from the germainean language. All I am saying is that we do not know all the connections, and all our knowledge is really nothing more that a simple guess, no matter how educated. I am not saying anybody is wrong, just that I do not think anybody starts at the beginning. Latin was not the beginning.
Cyracuz, no, Latin was not the beginning. English is a mishmash of many influences, including Latin. I never studied Latin, but I did very well with Chaucer and Shakespeare, but did miserably with Anglo-Saxon in university. Why? I don't know....they are all technically 'English' in terms of influence, well, with a lot of French and Italian/Latin thrown in, and some of that Germanic stuff, a little Scandanavian for colour. It's a hodgepodge. Now, the Latin scholars here can give you references I'm sure, but from what I understand, Latin was sort of the Esperanto of it's day, or perhaps Swahili, a codified language that did not always represent local dialects. Sheesh, I should consult my brother, as he's working on a PhD in linguistics....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace