Jones Beene wrote: > > *From:* Mauro > > > > At first I thought "Strange they didn't mention the fourth dimension". > But Fournier is the "man of the furnace", and "furnus" (oven) is the > french origin for "four". > http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/f/bl_name-FOURNIER.htm > > > > This I did not know … (that “four” comes from “fournier”) … and the > connection of the two is not clear. >
Hi Jones, You're right, the connection is unclear. Here's what I think, although scholars will probably disagree: "four" and "fournier" both share the same root. In the case of "fournier", this is clear and well documented(Oxford latin dictionary, plus other sources). "Fournier" comes from "fire", after passing through "furnus" (which means oven). Incidentally, "fire" comes from the Latin "focus", which is interesting in itself. Now, according to the sources, "four" seems to come as a series of deformations of the latin "quatter", first in proto indo european "qwetwor", later in proto germanic "petwor", and old english "feower" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=four This seems unlikely, due to the great phonetic distance between the two. There are many contrasts to be made, also. My take is that "four" comes also from (or is related to) "fire", with the following relation: "fire" being the "fourth" of the classical elements. This is not easy to swallow, but it doesn't sound impossible to me that in anglo-saxon and germanic Europe the influence of greek and latin thinking had shaped the phonetic form of the words "fourth" and "four", in their relation with the "fourth element". This is debatable, of course, because "four" being such a common word, its origin can be very ancient. Nevertheless, the origin of notion of the classical elements is very ancient too, and the relative similarity of the word for "fire" in many languages seem to support this notion. > It is curious that even some word-derivation experts do not appreciate > that the name “California” is derived from the lime kilns used by the > early Spaniards to build adobe buildings. > Thanks for that. The derivation sounds clear and evident to my spanish ears. > > > > By the way, I have made greats advances in my conceptions regarding > heretofore called "quantum flux", but I don't want to talk about it > until having a more precise and complete theory. > > > > Well – we look “Forward” (as in Robert F) to seeing that. Fran Roarty > more than anyone. > I'll try to publish an initial version during the weekend. Best regards, Mauro > > > > Jones >
