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:
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Notes on Dorotheus III: the haylāj, Kadhkhudāh, and terms of life
by Deborah Houlding
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

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Let's Conjoin
Goto page 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
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Let's Conjoin Reply with quote

Do any of you experience a peculiar curling of the toes when you hear that one planet conjuncts another? Are any of you past the stage of whispering the correct conjoins and now find yourself screaming it? I’ve been bombarded lately with examples of astrology dabblers, enthusiasts, students, and – most frightening – professionals talking of planets conjuncting. Horrors! Gobsmacked

It’s not about requiring astrologers to practice correct grammar and usage. It’s a matter of making sure that the basic terminology we use isn’t just bad English. The terminology is our way of discussing our particular area of study. Correctly used terminology indicates well-understood terminology – and a well-understood subject of study. Isn’t that the accepted academic norm? Plus... Idea ...well, it’s rather nice not to be thought of as the dumb ones of the school.


Last edited by ### on Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morpheus



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 741
Location: Rawalpindi/Islamabad (Pakistan)

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kirk---

What is technical/linguistic difference between Conjoins and Conjuncts?

And after reading your post, i must say that i have been making this mistake for so many years. Confused Whenever, i conversed in English, i was using the term Conjunction.

Maybe the reason might be that in my part of world we use following Arabic and Persian terms and no body uses English terms.

Koran--when two planets are at a same degree in same sign.

Mo-Karna--When any of five planets and Moon are at same degree in same sign.

Mo-Jasda--Any of five planets with North or South Node.

Ijtimah--Sun and Moon at same degree in same sign.

Ihtarak--Any of the five planets and Sun at same degree in same sign. However, Sun is able to burn any planet within 8 degrees and 30 minutes, either way.
_________________
Regards

Morpheus


"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dream of in your philosophy" Shakespeare

"All that matters on the chessboard is good moves" Bobby Fischer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Gryffindor,

I wasn’t very clear. The verb is conjoin (come together, unite). Conjunct is an adjective. When two planets conjoin (verb) they become conjunct (adjective) and form a conjunction (noun). In a related way two roads conjoin or come together at a junction.

I may sound picky, but I do think this is important, if only in order to make us astrologers sound reasonably articulate!

BTW, there is also the adjective conjoint. Has anyone ever seen that used astrologically?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk,

You have overlooked the fact that the word “conjunct” is also a noun. It is used as such in several areas of academic study, including linguistics, mathematics, philosophy and logic – and used most articulately as well.

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



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christina,

Yes, there is the noun conjunct. That’s fine. My concern is with conjunct incorrectly used as a verb. It’s all this illicit 'conjuncting' of heavenly bodies that I find upsetting. Two bodies should conjoin properly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 392
Location: UK

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk,

I've noticed this too. It's very common in books to talk of planets conjuncting one another. Which as you pointed out is completely grammatically incorrect! I usually use the phrase "two planets are in conjunction", or "Venus is conjunct Mars". I think it's just laziness to use the word as a verb when it isn't. Possibly also quite an American thing too. But by no means do only American writers do it.

Good point!

Keren
_________________
_____________________________
Tarot and Traditional Astrology by Keren-Happuch
www.keren-happuch.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morpheus



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 741
Location: Rawalpindi/Islamabad (Pakistan)

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kirk---

Thanks for pointing out the errors. So, the correct usage is

Conjoin--Verb
Conjunct--Adjective &
Conjunction--Noun Smile
_________________
Regards

Morpheus


"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dream of in your philosophy" Shakespeare

"All that matters on the chessboard is good moves" Bobby Fischer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pavla



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Germany

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk, thanks for bringing it up ! For me as someone not born into english it is usually very hard to find out not only correct usage of astrological terms, but also their pronunciation - most of them never are in some dictionary to my language and neither the correct forms are in spelling control of the programs I use, so it is very valuabel to find out about mistakes I may make. Thanks again Very Happy Thumbs up Laughing
Best greetings, Pavla
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk,

I understand your perspective on the word conjunct as a verb. However, I see it differently. As people evolve, so too does their language. After all, thought precedes language construction, not the other way around. Some astrologers have chosen to adapt conjunct to use as a verb because it is more efficient, not lazy, nor dumb.

The use of conjunct as a noun is fairly recent compared to its longstanding status as an adjective. Its adaptation to noun came about through a need for succinct, descriptive terminology in the evolving fields of mathematics and philosophy. Efficiency, not laziness, drove the adaptation.

Quote:
Correctly used terminology indicates well-understood terminology – and a well-understood subject of study. Isn’t that the accepted academic norm? Plus......well, it’s rather nice not to be thought of as the dumb ones of the school.


When mathematicians made the (at the time grammatically incorrect) adaptation to noun, I doubt they were concerned with being “thought of as the dumb ones of the school”. Many were suitably brilliant (e.g., Boolean conjuncts). I think no less of astrologers. There was a time that the public thought those who ‘calculated in numbers’ were either fools or wicked. Fortunately, fear of public ridicule did not deter mathematicians of the day. The outcome of their efforts fed forward into the renaissance allowing scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton to prevail.

Astrology deals primarily with heavenly bodies in motion. In every conjunction or aspect one body is moving towards another. Therefore, it is more sensible to use one verb that describes the action than a static verb-adjective combination.

Currently, dictionaries give two definitions for conjunct. The first is an adjective. The second is a noun attributed to logic and mathematics. Possibly, there is room for a third definition as a verb used in astrology. IOW, astrologers’ adaptation of the word conjunct offers a golden opportunity to have its definition entered worldwide into dictionaries as a verb attributed to use in the field of astrology. If enough astrologers take up the gauntlet, it can be done because it is sound. A nod of approval from Webster’s is within reach, but only if astrologers stand tall and not be intimidated. If mathematicians and philosophers can impact the language - improving it - so too can astrologers.

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



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As people evolve, so too does their language. After all, thought precedes language construction, not the other way around. Some astrologers have chosen to adapt conjunct to use as a verb because it is more efficient, not lazy, nor dumb.

It does all lead into the old battle of accepted correct language and language as an evolving system. I seriously doubt whether most of those astrologers have chosen to adapt conjunct to use as a verb. It most likely happens because of ignorance or laziness. If it's efficiency we're after then we should stay with the seven letters of conjoin rather than the eight of conjunct. Using a longer word doesn’t seem very efficient.Smile

But –
Quote:
As people evolve, so too does their language.

Oh dear. Does anyone see what I see? A similar argument is used elsewhere: 'As people evolve, so too does their astrology.' Can you hear the eerie echo?: “Some astrologers have chosen to adapt...” If we can play loose and free with English then we can do the same with astrology. Astrology is often called a language, after all. Maybe we're wasting our time and going down the wrong road when we study traditional astrology. Perfecting our skills in the old astrology may be akin to speaking in a comically old-fashioned way. Confused

Quote:
If enough astrologers take up the gauntlet, it can be done because it is sound.

So Uranus can rule Aquarius after all! Hurray! Now, what other astrological baggage can we get rid of?

Quote:
A nod of approval from Webster’s is within reach, but only if astrologers stand tall and not be intimidated. If mathematicians and philosophers can impact the language - improving it - so too can astrologers.

And it all starts with conjuncting. Just wait til we get to the adverbs! Thumbs up


Gryffindor & Pavla,

You’re welcome. Learning another language is such a long, slow process!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 392
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lala Happy Kirk!

Christina: There's no need for "conjuncting". We already have "conjoining". So let's use it!
_________________
_____________________________
Tarot and Traditional Astrology by Keren-Happuch
www.keren-happuch.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tracey



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

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I turned over my desk calendar (written by John Bassell McLeary and published through Ten Speed Press) on the day that this thread came up so in light of that I thought I'd share this:

"Bank: to trust or rely on. Introduced as a verb in 1962"

It's neither here nor there...just throwing in a bit of trivia due to the fairly modern phenomenon of synchronicity .

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



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tracey,

I never would have guessed that bank was officially made a verb meaning “to trust or rely on” as recently as 1962. It seems like it has just always been that way. The synchronicity perspective is interesting as well. Thanks for posting the info and observation.

Christina


Last edited by Christina on Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I seriously doubt whether most of those astrologers have chosen to adapt conjunct to use as a verb.


It does not matter. It is a more sensible use of the word. Equally doubtful is that when mathematicians and philosophers adapted conjunct from adjective to noun that they first contemplated the grammar. It is likely they did it because it was intelligent. Again, I think no less of astrologers.

Quote:
It most likely happens because of ignorance or laziness.


I think it doubtful that the grammar police reproved the mathematicians and philosophers for their “ignorance or laziness”. Why single out astrologers for derision over a minuscule language adaptation that has academic precedence and continuity of meaning?

Quote:
If it's efficiency we're after then we should stay with the seven letters of conjoin rather than the eight of conjunct. Using a longer word doesn’t seem very efficient.


If one’s purpose is solely to save as much space as possible then a seven letter word is more efficient than an eight letter word. However, saving the most space possible is not the context. When choosing academic terminology the priority is to convey meaning, function and usage in a simplified, consistent, succinct and effective manner. Conjunct/conjunction has greater consistency and simplicity than conjoin/conjunction. It is effective. Conjunct and conjoined are synonyms (adjective). Synonyms for conjunct are also verbs: joined, conjoined, shared, united, merged. Conjunct is the only non-verb among its common synonyms. Considering the frequency by which astrologers refer to conjunctions, the verb restriction is inconsistent and attaches unnecessary complexity (inefficient). Astrology is complex enough. In general, simplification makes it easier to navigate other complexities. Overall, science views the ability to simplify meaningfully as a sign of intelligence.

Assimilation of conjunct as a verb has extended too far to reverse the trend with any success, which is usually the case when an adaptation is plausible. At least, if it is official, there will be one fewer meaningless points of derision amongst astrologers (better for astrology). Over time, there is a possibility that someday astronomers will use it. Then astrologers could sit back smugly and discuss how astronomers adopted terminology from astrologers.

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



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have I been defeated? Is my preferred verb a relic? Sad It sounds like the new generation of astrologers can proudly junct hands in solidarity and wait for their impending linguistic victory.
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 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 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