Should we tolerate 'one planet conjuncts another?'

Yes
Total votes: 19 (56%)
No
Total votes: 15 (44%)
Total votes: 34

31
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.

33
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:
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. :) ) 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,
?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.c ... insky.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

34
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

35
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!

36
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

37
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).

38
?...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.

40
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

41
Let's make this thread even longer.

"Unwashed" Christina wrote:
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"? ;)

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.

42
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? :)

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