Chris
I got Keith's post a half day before
yours. And if you want to trust the google internet over the
dictionaries meant to trace the etymology then that is your
choice.
You said:
> Poor Ray got so agitated about this word
that he even mixed up the postings:
As for mixing up the posts. It
wasn't agitation but having read your first post which said:
Thanks for the explanation.
Chris
I then recieved
Keith's post and Steven's in that order and then your second post.
I answered with:
> > *Keith found the
root in "olos" from the Greek. Chris found that more
> > likely but wouldn't hear anything from Keith so he heard Steven.
>
> > likely but wouldn't hear anything from Keith so he heard Steven.
>
You then responded with:
> Actually, as anyone can verify in the archive, my posting was sent 3 hours
> _before_ Keith's,
> Actually, as anyone can verify in the archive, my posting was sent 3 hours
> _before_ Keith's,
I have no idea why my
server sent yours to me last but it is still in that order on the thread and if
you wish I will forward you a copy of that. You can take that up
with Mr. Gates if you wish. I obviously am one of the 90% who uses less
than 10% of his programs and confuses the rest rather than the
reverse. (I still can't get my machine to turn off on a
regular basis without freezing on Windows 98; My $80 an hour computer
techie says its a Win98 "issue".) however, that being said, I should
have checked those minutes out as you said even though your post was inserted in
the order my server sent them out rather than the order you sent
it.
> so Ray's accusation that I "wouldn't
hear anything from
> Keith so [I] heard Steven" is incorrect, not to say libellous...
> Keith so [I] heard Steven" is incorrect, not to say libellous...
If I was going to make a
judgment (without the e) then I should have at least checked that
time and if this judgment was going to be "libelous" then I should at least
have a good record of all of the posts that you two have sent and I should also
at least judge the "mood, feeling and action" that your words indicated in
order to get a sense of your attitudes. But, in my gut,
I still stand by my statement that has nothing to do with
whatever order you sent the "bloody" post. I still believe and
that is MY belief that you would rather choke than agree with Keith on
anything. You may find exceptions to that in your archive but
again my belief is built around your attitude in print which I am defining as
your projected "mood" hence the "feeling" I get from reading
that mood and a projection, prediction etc. of what exactly your state of
mind is in that.
But there is another less
flattering aspect to this for me. You are a different
language construct from mine and talking in a version (American English)
that is my first language. Perhaps I should be more
polite. We also don't share the same cultural cues plus we are
speaking to one another without inflections and in the sole language of
literacy. So perhaps I am wrong about your intention in your
actions and even if I'm not, perhaps I should be more understanding of your
courage in dealing with me on my own turf. Of course you're
a young guy and I'm an old fart so that should make it easier, but maybe
not. Perhaps literacy is the one place where experience counts for
more. Maybe, maybe not. Anyway I was rudely glib
and I will own that. It didn't show a great deal of
class.
Now that we have that out
of the way. Let's deal with the
rest.
You
said:
> What I found
more likely was that the word "wholistic" has little to do with
> "holy", as people simply omit the w for the reasons given by Stephen.
> "holy", as people simply omit the w for the reasons given by Stephen.
That I simply don't understand. Why are you
still poking me about what is written in the Oxford Etymological
Dictionary? That is not opinion on my part at all.
What I wrote in the post you imply that you "disbelieve it" or you
don't believe I'm telling the truth in which case I gave the page
number.
Are you saying that there is no connection between Holy and
Whole? Because if you are, you didn't check
the connection in American Heritage which is listed at
Dictionary.com. There is a spelling distinction
between Am. Her. II and the Oxford Dictionaries (OEDs) but I just
happen to have tonight in a rehearsal for his new opera, a Middle English
expert the composer/playwright Martin Halpern PhD from Harvard and
a retired teacher from Queens College in my studio.
He not only reads Middle English but speaks it as well. What Am
Her calls Kailo hard initial fricative consonant
is most likely the same as the (h) in the
modern English Heap or in the German Heilige
or even the hard (k) fricative in
Yiddish. Phoneticists write their dissertations on how to
pronounce such things with the correct modern
(F)Phonetics. One "claims" that its more
towards a (K) (Yiddish) while someone else says its more towards the (H) or as
the Hoch Deutsch/Sued Deutsch argument over how hard to say the final consonant
in ich. With the great Dietrich
Fischer-Dieskau saying an almost Viennese (sh)
consonant.
In fact what was the "Bible" for German pronunciation (Siebs Deutsche
Aus Sprache) (1961) isn't even printed today as the language has changed so much
in just forty one years. So at the distance of Old
English or Teutonic you can probably split the
difference in the pronunciation which gives you the same word whether spelled
with a (K) or an (H) and in which case either are the ancient
root of both Whole and
Holy. So even Am. Her., from II
on, relates both words to Kailo in which I suspect the K is really the same
fricative that is meant by the H in hailoz
(OED). If you know what the z on the
end of hailoz means then please share it. I
suspect that kailo and hailo are one and the same since both dictionaries claim
that they are the root of both Whole and Holy. Why would you
think differently? I would certainly be open to your
argument. The point is not to "win" an argument but to "win" by
knowing the answer.
I ask this because you continued:
> Now, Ray says that "whole", "holy" and "heilig" all come from the Teutonic
> "hailoz" (which can't be found in Google -- is your spelling correct?).
> But what about "ganz" ?? Das Wirrwarr ist ganz heillos. ;-)
> Now, Ray says that "whole", "holy" and "heilig" all come from the Teutonic
> "hailoz" (which can't be found in Google -- is your spelling correct?).
> But what about "ganz" ?? Das Wirrwarr ist ganz heillos. ;-)
As I said above "I" did not say or
write it but quoted it from the Oxford Etymological Dictionary even
with page number. Why did you bring this up again?
I am "confused" by that and my "welfare" is not an issue but my happiness in
this is.
Translation should not be such an issue considering
that we have the model of "links" to URLs on the internet.
Language is no different. A word is a trigger to "links" that spread
out in every direction in our collective minds. Those "links"
are the translations of the meanings of that URL and imply things about
the meanings contained within the original. They may be
"obvious" or they may even be "contrary" but something connected them to the
original site.
The words to poetry in English are like
that. I've found that the Germans and the Italians are a lot less
interested in such things. Often the Italians won't even try to
translate an Art Song Text because they believe the translation
itself to be an impossible pollution of the original
intent. Surprisingly the French are more open
but irritable if you are not willing to follow them all the
way. Lessons with Pierre Bernac were brutal and convinced me
that I should always defer to the owner of the house when in his
house. At the same time, I've read some pretty silly
explanations of American song texts from some famous European singers and
European Jazz is often a "problem."
I hate to bring this up but it is tied to a brain
phenomenon called "brain holes." (Yes there is some of the same
morphemic connection as the above conversation.) For
example: the English consonant (r) is literally heard in the
older Japanese mind as (L). We have a similar
response to the Thai (K) sound which has eleven different variants while
our brains can only register two. We simply don't hear the
difference and that registers on brain scans as "holes."
There was a recent paper given at the Acoustical Society of America meeting at
http://www.acoustics.org/press/143rd/Guenther.html
by some researchers from Boston University.
Another example is how the English love Hip-Hop but
they don't do it either. Listening to Japanese
orchestras play the pentatonic scales of Aaron Copland, Japanese
tuning of those scales is different from ours, as well as the well
trained Russian Artist immigrants who are sure they understand Broadway but
don't, is another example. Now Europeans suffer American
Classical performing artists in the same manner. American
pianists playing the Polonaise or worse the great difficult 2nd sonata of
Chopin next to a great Polish pianist or not so long ago the Metropolitan
Opera Diva Renee Fleming performing Donizetti's great masterwork Norma
at La Scala. She was devoured by both critics and
audience. The problem was that she just didn't get
the inflections. It wasn't that she isn't a great and
beautiful voice or that she isn't a wonderful musician and speaks Italian
fluently and loves Donizetti and the opera but it was those little micro-pieces
of meaning that are often beyond the awareness and hearing, and even the
writing, of someone who speaks the language but has been imprinted
emotionally with another mind set. One might say that
they ARE English but speak Italian. It takes a humble soul and
a great mind to be willing to stand on the stage of another culture and bring
something special to a reality that is so frought with
vulnerability. That is one of the things that I admire
about you and your writing on this list.
I think we should all realize that we can share and
we can teach each other and sometimes a mistake or bad performance can teach
performers who own the house something new about their mansions. I
think American singers have functioned to a large degree in this sense in
Europe. Many in Zurich and Geneva as well.
They always come back broadened and enriched from confronting their prejudices
and limits. But nothing happens if they assume that those who own
the house are simply wrong.
Best to you,
Ray Evans Harrell
P.S. Steven, you have not spoken after your initial
post. Do you still stand by your initial argument?
