Marco,
Where *can* we find an Anglo-Saxon scholar when we need one?
Is it me or is this speculation about the etymological relation of the anglo
saxon "geware" to the modern word "aware" somewhat besides the point?
It may be - but it's so much fun! As it happens I have a copy of Sweet's
Anglo-Saxon primer here, so I'll join in if that's OK. I can understand
some of it just about because the verbs behave in quite similar ways to
German, which I understand a bit, and to English of course, which I speak
like a native.
Looking for the "gewaere" that Marco mentions...
Sweet confirms that the "ge" in germanic languages and specifically
Anglo-Saxon can be a verb prefix denoting:
1.performance of an action,
or
2.attainment of a result by an action,
or
3.completion of an action (familiar in German past participles)
or
4. together [with].
We shall see shortly that 1 and 2 are the likely candidates in this case,
when we fix "ge" to "waere" to get "gewaere".
For I find that the glossary at the back of Sweet's primer mentions this
word:
"waere" (the "ae" is a dipthong, one letter, a special vowel of it's own)
as a form of this verb:
"wesan"
which is, in anglo-saxon, the equivalent of the english verb:
"to be"
(other forms include "waes", for the english "was". On the verb-tables
"waere" is a fair match of the english "were", except that unlike english
there is no past tense *as such* in anglo-saxon... there is only the present
and the "preterite").
So:
for "waere", go ahread and read "were", but be prepared to extend the
boundaries of the past tense to fit the Anglo-Saxon preterite tense, which
is a strange beast as far as i can make out.
Putting the "ge" back into the picture is the really important part....
The "ge" cannot be taken in it's past-participle function (like that it has
in many german words) because according to the verb table "waere" is already
a non-present ("preterite") word. Nor can the "with" sense of "ge" seem
anything but otiose here: "with being"? Why say *both* that somthing is or
was and *also* that it is *with* being or having been? Ridiculous - and
uneconomical - it's just repeating yourself. Not the terse anglo-saxons we
know and love.
So, by ilimination, that leaves us with the "ge" in one or all of it's
general *activity* usages here.
This suggests that for the anglo-saxons "gewaere" is a word connecting being
and action. Accordingly a "gewaere" thing is something that is or was
*actively being*, or alternatively *is what it is as a result of it's own
(ongoing or completed) activity*: "ge-waere".
Hm.
Not so very different from "aware", in either reading of the action prefix
"ge". Interesting.....
In fact, curiously enough the usage of "aware" that I have defended
incorporates just this anglo-saxon distinction between what exists
*actively* ("*ge*-waere") - conscious minds creatively deploying their
intellect, and what exists passively ("waere") and dependantly on the actors
and playwrights - fictional characters, pictures in paint or maths, atoms.
But I wouldn't want to make anything of this, of course....
I really don't think this settles the question of atomic awareness - but it
was fun going there Marco. As I'm no anglo-saxon scholar, the forgoing is
probably worthless in every respect (and I'd be glad to have this confirmed
by someone qualified) - but in this it is probably no better or worse than
your story amateur telling, so I thought I might as well join in for the fun
of it, offer a pleasant tale, that sort of thing.
But then again, what I report here about action prefixes and also about the
"to be" verb *does* come directly from Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer (*the*
text book, pub. OUP in the past, reprints from sandpiper on licence from
OUP).... So may be there is something in this........
Shocking reverse.
beware, be aware, and be actively,
Elephant
p.s. If you want to see someone take the pith out of
etymology-as-a-route-to-philosophical-understanding with *style*, I'd
recommend Plato's Cratylus.
> From: "Marco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:32:06 +0200
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MD Atomic awareness
>
> Roger, Platt, Jonathan and all aware and unaware people.
>
>
> ROG:
> Does someone want to try to wrap up the issue and offer a solution that
> we can all agree on? Or do we still need to hash out a few issues?
> Marco, you still out there?
>
> MARCO:
> Here I am! I'm very flattered you ask for my intervention for a
> solution. I think we all are perfectly *aware* :-) that an eventual
> awareness of atoms has to be considered quite different from our
> awareness/consciousness. IMO there is not a substantial disagreement
> about the behavior of electrons: it is just a disagreement about the
> term. Of course, I'm with Jonathan and I also think that if the MOQ
> pretends to be a successful philosophy, we have to suggest/accept
> modifications on language. Actually, the Q- suffix used on this forum
> to distinguish the MOQ terms by the common terms is a good solution. So
> Q-morality is not morality, Q-society is not society, and so on. That's
> why I've been talking of Q-awareness.
>
> Anyway, I don't know if I'm going to offer a solution. Pushed by Platt's
> words:
>
> «Perhaps Jonathan's "au courant" gets this idea across as well as
> anything suggested so far, though I'd prefer an English phrase. Maybe
> there are other expressions we can use that ascribe value-sensitivity to
> atoms without, like Frankenstein, bringing them to life to Roger's
> horror. As far as I know, the English language doesn't have a word for a
> barely experienced experience. Suggestions welcome»
>
> I'll try to find out a good term. Firstly, I attempt to deepen the
> meaning of "awareness", in order to understand if the usage of the term
> has a sense about atoms.
>
> I've found that in Italian we could translate the French au-courant
> "Essere all'altezza", that means "to be up to the task", "to be able".
> Was it the meaning you were suggesting, Jonathan?
>
> Anyway, I tried to further investigate the etymology of awareness. In a
> precedent post, I wrote:
>
> «I don't know the etymology of "aware", I just have found that the Old
> English term was "gewaer", and it does not recall to me any Latin
> connection. I'm not able to think in English, so when I write "aware",
> I think "consapevole", or "conscio"; that is, retranslated to English:
> "conscious". (Andrea, correct me if I'm wrong). Actually both the
> Italian terms contain a reference to an "inner knowledge" : con-scious
> is "with science". So, what does it mean to be aware? IMOE (In My Own
> English) it's "to well know how to do", without the need of an external
> guidance»
>
> Well, it does not seem so different from that "Au courant"...
>
> "Aware", Old English: "Gewear". I wrote I was not remembering Latin
> terms like that.... but Italian is not Latin. We also have taken many
> words from German, Slav, Arab...
>
> Clearly the root of aware is the same of "wary" and "ware". Maybe also
> the same of "war"?
>
> It could be that to be AWARE means simply, to be ready for the WAR. I
> imagine a tribe, and a chief who gives instructions to a soldier. "If
> the enemy comes, we call it WAR. You have to be WARY. BEWARE of the
> enemy, ok? WATCH, and keep yourself AWAKE. Well, now you are AWARE of
> your duty. See you tomorrow morning"
>
> Let's examine these terms. A good term for that soldier is "Watcher". In
> Italian, "To Watch" is "Guardare" and "Watcher" is "Guardia". It's not
> a coincidence that our term for "War" is "Guerra" (surely it has a
> Germanic origin, as the Latin term was Bellum). As you see, in both
> cases your current initial "W" is our initial "GU", and the fact that
> the Old English term for "aware" was "gewaer", makes me think that we
> are probably talking of the same root. Actually, English has taken
> lately (by French) the term "Guardian", that is in significance and
> etymology the same as "Watcher".
>
> Anyway, let's go back to our Guardian/Watcher. Usually the Guardian is
> alone. He receives instructions; then, armed, aware, awake, waits...
> able to recognize the possible danger from any false alarm, and in
> consequence, able to choose. When the enemy comes, he could also run
> away, breaking the laws of the tribe. He will choose between his own
> good and the good of the tribe. Autonomous. Another good term. In
> Greek, Self-Law. The sentinel, alone in the night, holds in his hands
> the choice. No need for commands: he will act following the law he has
> inside.
>
> And the electron? Can we say it's "Aware"? Could be. Actually, when we
> isolate it for an experiment, it demonstates that when it's alone it's
> also able to choose its acts with no need for instructions. I tried to
> show that "aware" could be considered something less than "conscious",
> so I think that we could use the term. Anyway, if still "aware" is too
> strong, I suggest "AUTONOMOUS". A good term to mean it's self equipped
> to face reality: independent of the laws we invent for it (like Forces,
> Causation... ) as the "real law" is inside the electron. "Autonomous"
> seems less embarrassing than "aware" or "conscious", and IMO better than
> "prehensible". And more, smells also of freedom. Free to choose.
>
> Could it be?
>
> Marco.
>
>
> p.s.
> Roger, I think you have exaggerated more than a bit about my English.
> Anyway, many thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
