skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Let's Conjoin
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should we tolerate 'one planet conjuncts another?'
Yes
55%
 55% 
No
44%
 44% 

Author Message
SaturnReturn



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 100
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I find it challenging and fun to push myself to a higher linguistic standard.


Very cool! It does sound like fun, language is an amazing thing. I took a course on the History the English Language, taught by a Stanford PHD. Well, it was an audio series, I don't go to Standford, but thats beside the point. The point is that it was fascinating. So I agree with you here.

The goal of verbal language is communication. As long as the intended message has reached the intended recipient and understood, language has done its job. We just need to keep the verbal symbols we utter to be uniform enough so that we can communicate. Thats why its important to preserve the language.

There is also an interesting side note to this involving the study of Old English. Academics found that when studying how Old English might have sounded(since no one alive today speaks Old English), it was better to look at the writings of the uneducated, as they tend to spell phonetically. That alone might be the saving grace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 445
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What, there's no love for coitus? Tongue Out
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As far as the topic goes, good points about trine and sextile. But are they verbs?


Both Webster’s and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) define trine as a verb:

Quote:
Trine verb3 rare To put or join in a trine aspect.
a 1700 Dryden Palamon & Arcite By fortune he (Saturn) was now to Venus trined
b 1840 Browning Sordello Tis done! And now deter Who may the Tuscan – once Jove trined for her – From Friedrich’s path! (OED)


According to both the OED and Webster’s sextile is not a verb but is an adjective and noun, with astrological citation. Square is squarely a verb, complete with astrological reference (OED cites 1858 Zadkiel, also 1697 Creech on Manilus).

Lexicographers would have the verb use thus:

Sun is conjunct Jupiter
Sun is sextile Jupiter
Sun squares Jupiter
Sun trines Jupiter
Sun opposes Jupiter

The current language structure for the aspect set is incongruous without reason. (Tracey, odd word alert - cover your ears. Smile ) Academic terminology designates specialized knowledge, not general language. Astrology is a specialized academic field and the aspect set is an essential component of astrology’s infrastructure. Astrological aspect theory is elegant theory. Specialized terminology used to structure elegant theory should be consistent and precise. The minor adaptation from adjective conjunct to verb (Sun conjuncts Jupiter) is not rocket science or charm quarks, but it is consistent and precise. Ditto for sextiles.

Per Dr. Jeffery Triggs, Oxford English Dictionary’s Director of the North America Reading Program,

Quote:
…the best a "scientific'' lexicographer can do is trust his citation evidence, and if this is broad enough, it is certainly more objective than the opinions of any "usage panel'' could hope to be.

…no one's English is all English. (General Explanations' preface to the OED)
http://www.leoyan.com/global-language.com/triggs/Willinsky.html

The OED citations appear to be extremely thorough. The citation evidence for the aspects is dated from the 1600’s to 1800’s from poets, playwrights and astrologers. One possibility for the inconsistency between aspect adjective-verb sets in the printed word may be that sextile and conjunct had less poetic value to authors of the time, ie, possibly displeased the ear.

Kirk, your comments on standards of excellence are well said.

Ntl, I haven’t sheathed my light-saber yet. I have a strong regard for the excellence of language and mind, which is why I am not a big fan of general language changes. One of the endearing subtleties of language, in all its correct usage, is its capacity to facilitate and enhance higher orders of thought processes. In addition, I am against the overuse (abuse) of thesaurus synonyms because the habit can dilute word connotations and compromise excellence of meaning. Imo, this is not the case with conjunct/conjoined for they are virtually identical in meaning (OED).

Christina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tracey



Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 61
Location: New Zealand

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Christina for that and I agree Kirk's comments are excellent regarding the proper use of language. I am always on my kid's backs about talking properly.

Now we just need to work on building a bridge across the traditional and modern divide...let's all work together and not waste energy arguing!

Tracey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 392
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't believe this thread is still going on! I've read all the posts and still don't see that there is one single argument against "conjoin" which holds water. It's just laziness I think. As I said, we already have plenty of words. We don't need to create another. But despite all our differences, this thread has made quite an entertaining read! I certainly laughed out loud more than once. I like the way we can all disagree yet still maintain a sense of good humour. Hooray for skyscript and friendly debate!
_________________
_____________________________
Tarot and Traditional Astrology by Keren-Happuch
www.keren-happuch.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keren,

I understand your comments on “one planet conjuncts another”. You claim it is incorrect grammar.

What is your position on sextiles? Is it correct or incorrect to say “Sun sextiles Jupiter”?

Christina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3917
Location: England

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It’s amazing how this poll has hovered over the balance.

One of the reasons why I can’t fully commit to the imperial faction, despite the passionate calls for integrity and standards, is that astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language. Without its element of subjective meaning it is nothing, or rather it is simply astronomy. The word ‘conjoin’ was loose and flexible traditionally, it could mean any kind of meeting by aspect (that’s why traditional astrologers used the term ‘corporeal conjunction’ to differentiate what we know as a conjunction from another kind of aspect). In many places, meaning was apparent from context. We can be narrow and precise, and technical, or we can be rounded and tolerant to varying expressions. So long as we understand the meaning, what does it matter? ( I will however, never use the word ‘conjunct’ inappropriately, being aware now of how irritating it is to some).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“...astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language.”

And doesn’t that cause problems! The debate seems to be about just how loose we can let astrology be. How loose with our astrology? How loose with our English? And then there’s the opposite situation of strangling the life out of them.


Last edited by ### on Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
amelia



Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 348
Location: Wales

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

God, it's late at night and this thread is very long,..... my eyes are getting sore and starting to itch - must be conjunctivitis I suppose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kim Farnell



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 256

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look what I miss while I take some time out! I wish I had more votes...

Conjoin every time for me. I don't junct instead of join either. I don't have a problem with sextiling and trining, as to my knowledge, there isn't another viable alternative unless you reframe the sentence completely.

But then I can't bear signs saying "this door is alarmed" either. I always wonder how the window feels.

Kim
_________________
www.kimfarnell.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Coder



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 143

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's make this thread even longer.

"Unwashed" Christina wrote:
Quote:
word “conjunct” is also a noun. It is used as such in several areas of academic study, including linguistics, mathematics, philosophy and logic

Is someone doing some wool-pulling? I have read tens of thousands of pages of academic philosophy texts, but I don't recall "conjunct" being used as a noun. The reason is that philosophy requires only ordinary, plain, working-man's language, so the incidence of figurative and/or technical terms and language is red-flagged by reflex (as the frequent subsequent move is to import ambiguity into the argument in an attempt to bolster it). PM me with an example or two please. I like to stay up to date. (Formal logic is another matter; not to be compared with philosphy, as it's 99.99% mathematical now anyway).

For fragrant Deb - would it help decide the issue if there was a separate poll for "effort"? Wink

I take "X conjunct Y" as a verbal rehearsal of the particular combination of glyphs involved in notating that astrological aspect, in the same way that one might read a differential equation as "dy over dx". In neither case is it acceptable in written text. Unless of course "language has evolved" - but I take this little gem as meaning "language usage has changed" rather than what the user wants it to mean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coder,

Philosophy has many branches of which logic is one. As far as I know, the philosopher Aristotle introduced formal logic with his introduction of the syllogism, then big skip ahead to the mid-nineteenth century formal logic, ahead again to modern day mathematics-formal logic-computer science. My intention was to simplify and avoid ‘big long stories’ that drag folks off topic and gives Amelia conjunctivitis. Therefore, whenever I said “philosophy”, I deliberately said it together with “mathematics” because of the connection between mathematics and logic (as a branch of philosophy). At times, I said “mathematics” alone but never “philosophy” alone (for the same reason). If you prefer, I will unbundle “philosophy” and just say “logic”.

You wouldn’t be wool-pulling or introducing ambiguity here? Smile

Back to the topic: To verb or not to verb
Conjunct is an adjective and noun.
Sextile is an adjective and noun.
Square is an adjective, noun and verb (in astrological usage)
Trine is an adjective, noun and verb (in astrological usage)

Is it logical?

Is “one planet sextiles another” acceptable? If so, then why would “one planet conjuncts another” be unacceptable?

Good point about the glyphs - I was wondering when someone would point that out.

Christina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pavla



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Germany

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
Gryffindor & Pavla,

You’re welcome. Learning another language is such a long, slow process!


Thanks, Kirk. I think it is not much different to learning one's own language. I moved some years ago from the country of my mothertongue and it is amazing how much the language developed in just few years !

Thinking about it this way - while I by all means agree that language excellence should be important part of life - it may be possible that using correct terminology, which is however not known/ignored by others, may lead to one speaking pure/correct language but sounding archaic.

But I do agree that most of contemporary changes to grammar are not the best - German grammar for example changed few times in last ten years. Most changes were done in the way of making tha language easier, not nicer. Talk about excellence ! But then it is enough to check some chats of not scholars and it becomes obvious that making language easier (even if less nicer) may bring profit of writing more correctly to many.

But I still will try to use conjoin more than conjunct Lala Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3D



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 125

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

I don’t have a strong opinion on the use of ’to cunjunct’ since English is not my native language. I’ve used the terms Sun conjoins, opposes, trines, squares, is sextile Jupiter, for example.
‘Sun conjoins Jupiter’ / ‘Sun is conjunct Jupiter’ have slightly different meanings for me. The verb emphasizes the motion, so ‘Sun conjoins Jupiter’ or especially ‘Sun is conjoining Jupiter’ would mean an applying conjunction for me. Please correct me if I’m way off the track.

What I’m much more concerned of is the meaning of a conjunction. Can Sirius be conjunct the Sun? – In my opinion not. The actual angle between the Sun and Sirius can never be less than 39° (the latitude of Sirius). It can be aligned with the Sun on the Ecliptic, but not really conjunct.

It gets even stranger if we say ‘Polaris is conjunct the Ascendant’ for a Chart in middle Northern latitudes. Polaris is circumpolar, so it never rises here. How can it be conjunct the Ascendant?

René
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3917
Location: England

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Rene

Ptolemy’s argument (Tetrabiblos, I.24) is that all rays converge in the centre of the earth, so since it is the relationship between the planets as if you were viewing them from the centre of the earth, a conjunction in longitude does not need to meet by latitude as well. Latitude only needs to be considered for occultations.

(On the theory of aspects I think that Ptolemy's views have to be given a lot of merit, because of the way they integrate with related philosophies, such as musical structures).

I like your point about ‘Sun conjoins Jupiter’ / ‘Sun is conjunct Jupiter’. For example I would be comfortable with ‘Jupiter is conjunct the Sun’, but not with ‘Jupiter conjoins the Sun’, because of the way that it misrepresents the motion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated