change-ability..of using words..
in context..of the meaning of the words..IN THEIR TIME*

as..i asked..[peter]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15467&page=0

as he espoused here
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15077

<<..The Interpretation*..of Knowledge>>..
from
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/intpr.html

(13 lines/missing)

YET*..their..missing meaning..
can be restored..

eg..from
<<The Exegesis ..on the Soul>>
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/exe.html

Wise men..of old..gave the spirit..a feminine name*[aspect].
Indeed..she is female..in her nature as well...

She even has..her womb.

As long as..she was alone..with the father*,
she was virgin..and in form androgynous.

But when she..[our life spirit]..fell down..into a body
and came..to this life..then she fell..into the hands..of many robbers.

And the wanton/creatures
passed..'her'..from one to another
and[.seduced/corrupted..] her.[into..wants/needs/urgings..of the flesh_realm]..

Some..made use..of her..[in-carnate/spirit gifts]..by force,
[to do things..most vile..[..that stain our soul-form..according to our want]..while others did so..by seducing her..[us]..with a gift/praises/rite/rituals.

In short,..they [israel?]..defiled her,..[the embodied..of holy/spirit]..and she..[WE..gave up...]..her virginity.[innocence]

And in her..[soul]..in/body[flesh]
she..[we]..prostituted herself..[ourselves]
and..gave herself..[ourselves]..to one and all,..
considering each one..[life experience/gods/faiths]..she was about to embrace..to be her husband..[god]

my guides..advise they dislike..the language/used
but this age..needs the unadulterated ..truth..if not by you..then who?

continues/at end..of
*The Expository/Treatise..on the Soul*

... they*[israel]..came to believe
by means of signs..and wonders..*and fabrications.

The likeness..that came..to be..through them..followed him,
but..through reproaches..and humiliations..before they received..the apprehension..of a vision..they fled

*without having heard..
that..the Christ..had been crucified/died.>>..

*and..returned..refuting//the dreaded day/of judgment
*and..his return..refuted resection day*

..<<.But..our generation..is..fleeing..yet again.
.since it does..not yet even believe*..that..the Christ..is alive...lives.

In order.that..our faith may be holy..(and).pure,
not relying..upon itself/actively,..but maintaining..itself..planted in him,

do not say.."Whence is.the patience..to measure faith?",
for each one..is persuaded..ONLY..by the things..*he believes.*

If..he dis-believes them,..
then he would be unable to be persuaded.
But it is a great thing..for a man..who has faith,..since he is not in unbelief,..which is that..*of the world.

Now..the world..is the place..of unfaith..
and the place..of death.

And death exists as..[the..lie/death]
(14 lines missing)...

..likeness..[of heaven]

and..they will not..believe.

A..holy thing..is
the faith..to see..the likeness..[under the flesh].
The opposite..is..faith..in the likeness...[darkness/nothing]

The things..that he will grant them..will support them.
It was impossible..for them..to attain to..the imperishability

[...]..will become
[...].loosen..[...]..those who were sent..[...].

For he..who is..*distressed..will not believe.
He is unable..to bring..a great church,..[body of christ..back to its innocence]..since it is gathered..out of..a small gathering...[less each day]

He became..an emanation..of the trace...[dis-stressed sign]..
For also..they say..about the likeness..that it is apprehended..by means of..his trace.

The structure..apprehends..by means of..the likeness,..
but God apprehends..by means of his remembrances.

He..knew them
before*..they were begotten,..
and they will know him...thought forgotten

And the one..who begot each one..*from the first
will indwell them...He will rule over them...well.

For it is necessary..for each one...
(25 lines missing)...

the Savior..removed himself,..since it is fitting.
Indeed,..not ignorant..but carnal..is the word..who took him..as a husband.

And it is he..who exists..as an image,
since that one..(masc.cause).also exists,..as well as that one (fem.fruit)..who brought us forth...

And she caused him..to know..
that she*..is the Womb.

This is a marvel..of hers..[arsouls]..
that she causes us..to transcend patience.

But this..is the marvel:..he loves
the one..who was at first..to permit a virgin..

.

Dear David,

.

« To understand what a word means we have to know what it meant at the time it was used.”

.

I fully agree.

In fact I see exactly what you see in all the examples you cite (faith, girl, cleave, mock) but do not draw the same conclusions as you do.

I see trace of the essence of the meaning of each word in the meaning of the source from which it derives:

For “faith” I understand that “trust, confidence » is its essence, from the Latin “fidès”.

For “girl” I understand that “child” is its essence, from Low German “goere” (boy, girl) which perhaps derives from the Proto-Indo-European “ghwrgh”.

For “cleave” I understand that the same word, with two totally different, unconnected meanings has derived from two completely different, independent sources as you explain in your post.

For “mock” I understand that “derisive imitation” (which you indicate as “copy accurately”) is its essence, of unclear origin (perhaps from Old French “moquer”, deride, jeer … relating to “mockingbird” and “mock turtle”).

In conclusion, as I see it, all living languages evolve and each word of each language derives from an original idea-source, or idea-sources (as in the case of the two words “cleave”) giving rise to one or more versions of the same fundamental idea, in order to adapt it to different contexts, needs, modes and inspirations, in what may, perhaps, best be described as classical Darwinian style.

.

so as to not detract..this thread
i have expanded..the previous thought..further..here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995#172089

anyhow..

davidf..<<..The meaning of the word,..*cleave,
can only be understood..by the context..in which it is used,..and the etymology..is no help at all.>>

so first i had to learn,..what is etymology

by now ..you know..i must check that...

<<..from Greek etymologia,..properly
"study of..the true sense..(of a word),"

from etymon.."true sense"..(
neuter of etymos.."true,..real,..actual,"
related to eteos.."true") + -logia.."study of,..a speaking of"

why dont clever people..use the proper words?
surely..as a word evolves..it evolves..its new form

as when..etimos..[true]
become..etymos[true sense]
that became etymolgia..[study..of the true sense]
became..etymology..[study of the true sense of the word]

i know im over thinking it
but its all new info..to me
http://www.etymonline.com/

and as usual..from you
it checks out
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=cleave&searchmode=none

<<..I don’t think there is..such a thing..as the essence of a meaning of a word..as meanings of words change.>>

thats criminal

i thought english speakers
took pride..in..correct spelling
punctuation..etc

..it seems the inteligensa..
is deliberately muddying the waters..[dumbing down..
by deliberated deceptions]..as a matter of policy..to change common usages..into deliberated spin

gay..is a case..in point

<<..To understand..what a word means
we have to know..what it meant..at the time it was used>>...

that seems too generous
how can..a feeling..be turned into a noun
never the less..i accept your point..irrefutably

<<..In Shelley’s poem
“Ozymandias”>>.. made me curious

<<..No matching terms found...>>
so went..the google
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias
<<..Shelley's most famous short poem.
It was written in competition..with his friend Horace Smith,
who wrote another sonnet..

titled.."Ozymandias"...

IN Egypt's sandy silence,..all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg,..which far off throws
The only shadow..that the Desert knows:—

"I am great OZYMANDIAS,"
saith the stone,
"The King of Kings;..this mighty City shows
"The wonders of my hand."

— The City's gone,—
Nought but the Leg..remaining to disclose
The site..of this forgotten Babylon.

We wonder,—and when..then..some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours,..when thro'..the wilderness progress

Where London stood,..holding the Wolf..in chace,[hunting ground]
He meets..some fragment huge...and stops to guess

What powerful..but unrecorded race
Once dwelt..in that annihilated place.
– Horace Smith.[4]

.

Dear David,

.

“Since I was not using the word, faith, to refer to the attitude into which contractual obligations are entered into we are not referring to the same thing.”

.

I just realized that I omitted to address this specific point in my previous post.

Obviously, as you say, “we were not referring to the same thing” but we were, nevertheless, both referring to the same notion of “faith”.

The topic arose initially with your comment:

“I think faith in itself is not worth a pail of warm spit. I think faith in itself is far more bad than good. Doubt and questioning seem greatly superior. To me faith is a vice.”

This “initial” comment was in fact a sequel to your previous remarks to George that:

“It is not Christian faith, faith in ideologies formed in a Christian society or faith in a monotheist religion that bothers me. It is the idea of faith itself that I find problematical along with certain other concepts … So much suffering could be avoided if one questions the result of following the demands of faith or honour.”

As you were challenging “the idea of faith itself” in such an all-inclusive manner, I felt authorised to draw your attention to an aspect of faith which, I naïvely imagined (apparently, mistakenly), you would happily recognize as being worth, at least, “a pail of warm spit”.

Unfortunately,I guess I’ll just have to bite my tongue, eat my words, close my mouth and … swallow my spit !

.

george..<<..Is..being.a scientist..
compatible..with speaking Hungarian?>>

at this stage..of our talk
im..looking for an answer..not based..on faith
but like hungarian..its a matter..of precise..definitive/usages[specificit]

science ..has its..own..definitive...word structure/meaning/usage
as you all..would know better examples..i..need not..give any

<<.Similarly..for being
a scientist..and believing..in God.>>

apples compared..with cheese
but..the science mind..needs facts/logic..
cause action/reaction/thesis/testing thesis..etc

all of which rely..on faith..that..the question..
is the correctly defined..so that..the rest follows..relates..via logic..with the facts

as banjo..pointed out..in insurance
trust..is taken..on faith..[the presumption being
that even..if the facts are misstated..they are the conditions as declared..thus actionable..if errant/or fraud

david..clearly defines..his objections..of..the word
as applied..in its religious sense....[i hesitate..to be found..to/be..preachy

but..i have..more than faith..in god
in fact am..disappointed..that my firmly held conviction
of my..own life experiences..[my own..personal validations]..could be lumped..into..the same..*blind faith..that so insults all of us..

[blind faith..especially..when
injurious/hurtful/exploitative or just plain..wrong]
and..david has made..the case well..that it replicates/previous stories

but..i look at..precedence..
not as any proof..of plagiarism
[i look at it..much..like my..own writing..i have to attune..my mind..with the guides i seek..[in-put/in-spi-ration]..with.

thus,,[for example]..i read..search results
of ozy-mandi..seeking to communicate..with the departed
who was in-spired..enough..to frame..the thought concepts of the writers mind imagery..into word..

[then reverse/engineer..it via word..
back into..mind-image..in my own mind
knowing..the original..thinker/framer..of the word form..must..react]

[its a..spiritual karma..
my action..continues their initial/act]

while im writing this..im filtering things..like duality
and faith..and the many..other word-form's..we have clarified.[in-formed]..here.

i know..its desperate..to want hang onto..the spirit
of camaraderie..we together have manifested..into word

<<..one may be curious..about how these..scientists
deal..with/what..some atheists see..as conflicts..or cognitive dissonance.>>

i think..we have seen
that true science..must do..test the hyper..hypo-thesus
not trusting..[or rather..not relying]..on any faith but..simple/faith..in each other's..sincerity..

that together..[collectively].we are greater..together
than..any one of us..alone

<<..she admitted that.."there are..
religious/scientists out there,and truly religious/scientists,..which I find very confusing."..>>..<<..And elsewhere,.."scientifically inclined people..with or without faith..[who?]..will try to pry open..the universe..to find answers.">>

and that..is
what unites us*

is greater than..any that..seeks to divide us
from needing to know..beyond faith
just..the facts..maam

<<..although..she finds..this fact.."very confusing".>>

think..how she could/have added her bit..
and made it..better..*[though..its pretty darn good]