Late morning. Clear blue sky for a change, a couple of buds on the honeysuckle bushes. Yesterday you strew Scotts sun and shade grass seed in the front yard where needed, mostly under the somewhat muddy patch beneath the tree’s small grove.
Yesterday I mentioned the article by Daniel Mason in the latest Harpers, “The Miraculous Discovery of Psammetichus I” and then promptly forgot about it. What is interesting is that Psammetichus I experimented with language. I did not know this. This is from the opening paragraphs of the article. What an historical reflection of/on our sense of identity,
[Below taken from a translation of Herodotus, The Histories, Book II (translation by G. Rawlinson, 1858)]
“1. Now, the Egyptians, before the reign of Psammetichus, believed themselves to be the most ancient race of mankind. But Psammetichus, upon ascending the throne, set out to determine who truly was the most primitive. Finding it impossible to do so by dint of inquiry, he contrived the following method of discovery. Taking two children of the common sort, he gave them to a herdsman to raise, charging him to let no one utter a word in their presence but to keep them in a secluded cottage, introducing only goat’s milk so they might slake their thirst. His intention was to know, after the babblings of infancy were over, what word they would first articulate. And so it happened. The herdsman obeyed his orders for two years, until one day, when he opened the door to the cottage, the children ran to him with outstretched arms and shouted, “becos.” At first the herdsman took no notice, but soon the word was constantly on their mouths. So he informed his lord, and Psammetichus commanded them be brought into his presence. And having himself heard them pronounce “becos,” he made inquiries into what people might use this word and learned that “becos” was the Phrygian name for bread. Thus the Egyptians yielded their claims and admitted the greater antiquity of the Phrygians.
These were the real facts I learned at Memphis from the priests of Hephaistos . . . .”
Harpers, “The Miraculous Discovery of Psammetichus I”, Daniel Mason. March, 2011, p. 62.
**
Glad you took care of that, orndorff. Carol is calling you to lunch. Post. – Amorella.
For you it is a hope for humankind first. Post. - Amorella.
Late afternoon of a still clear and sunny day. You wanted a verification of the story in Harpers and found this in Wikipedia.
Discovering the origin of language
The Greek historian Herodotus conveyed an anecdote about Psamtik [Psammetichus I – 665 BCE ] in the second volume of his Histories (2.2). During his travel to Egypt, Herodotus heard that Psammetichus ("Psamtik") sought to discover the origin of language by conducting an experiment with two children. Allegedly he gave two newborn babies to a shepherd, with the instructions that no one should speak to them, but that the shepherd should feed and care for them while listening to determine their first words. The hypothesis was that the first word would be uttered in the root language of all people. When one of the children cried "bekos" with outstretched arms the shepherd concluded that the word was Phrygian because that was the sound of Phrygian word for "bread." Thus, they concluded that the Phrygians were an older people than the Egyptians, and that Phrygian was the original language of men. There are no other extant sources to verify this story.
**
Whether the anecdote is true or not is not the point, this does show that Herodotus thought the story of the experiment was worth mentioning. I wonder then, why people seemingly mention things out of the blue. Myself included. This story is a good example. So, what good is this in reference to writing The Rebellion, Amorella?
It shows your interest in studies on the origins of language. The fictions are stories on origins too. Need there be more?
While what you say is true, it is also general. I do not see anything specific.
You are ‘experimenting’ in language also; the original language of the heartansoulanmind. It is not a matter of belief (as you like to say) it is a matter of reason and original purpose. You would like to find out more about me, the Amorella, through what I choose to be important enough to put in, you do not know why I include some words, for instance a recent example: “a non-circumciseable skin-like extension of Nourishstance.” Post. Later, dude. – Amorella.
Is "the Amorella" an error?
No more than you are, boy. - Amorella.
Is "the Amorella" an error?
No more than you are, boy. - Amorella.
After twenty-two hundred hours and you now have two questions on your mind that you did not have when you awoke this morning. One, why the Amorella when it has never been used before? And, two, what is the original language of heartansoulanmind?
Responding to your first question. I have used “the Soki” and “the Supervisor” as character names but not “the Amorella”. Amorella is personalized and appears to be a proper noun. The Amorella gives the appearance of the name as a rank, such as Captain Amorella or Admiral Amorella. In here, Betweener is as a rank. You need to realize and understand the distinction as the story is going to take a more metaphysical turn.
You used to give a lecture about angels when introducing selections of Paradise Lost to your seniors. Medieval categories, ranks, if you will. Some angels had more ‘enlightenments’ than others. We will use this concept as did Milton. No ‘Hell’s Angels” in these books though. No need. Think. What need do humans have to create such creatures? Such ‘angelic’ creatures are a human invention when no need of power exists. The Supervisor is by HeranHis spiritual nature an ecologically oriented chameleon.
I think I am not understanding this correctly, that is, I am not using the correct words here.
The characters in the story, being human still, think the Rebellion is about power and control but it is not. This will be lost in translation, boy, when negotiations take place. Misunderstandings that are understandable, but wrong nevertheless. This mistranslation goes a step or two above Betweener in rank, but not to the Ultimate Being inferred existing in the stories. The metaphysical Machinery of the Spirit is driven by individual human passion or so it appears, but in here, passion is as a metaphysical form of energy.
You are already denying this to be used in the book because it seems unreasonable and too much like fantasy, like a faery queen having control of a magic wand. Yet, the chaos, or hell, in other stories is caused by misused passion, the seven deadly sins come into mind. Think it over. More on this tomorrow. – Amorella.
This makes sense when dealing with the seven sins, but as I cannot see into pages I have not read I am left wondering. I suppose it is a form of faith that I wait to see how these things appear in the printed word.
For you it is a hope for humankind first. Post. - Amorella.
No comments:
Post a Comment