misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

since you called me in from another thread.it appears that thea (to view) and thea (the feminine of theos) are merely homonyms.thea is the root of words like "theatre" and "theory." theos is the root of words like "theology" and "atheist."theoria and theorein seem to be different words that wikipedia has conflated.even as such, it is generally poor practice to try to equate words based on etymological roots. the usage and accepted definitions are much more important. even then, the historical usage may not mean much about the modern usage -- lots of secular things have religious origins and vice-versa.

---

indeed. oh, because only the "the-" part comes from thea. the "-ory" part comes from horan.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

no, just the best answer i can figure out. looking at the article, it tangles up the two words that don't appear to be related. theos in the feminine is thea. thea can be either "view" or "goddess." the two are different words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.it is possible that the word originally comes from the goddess by the same name, or vice versa, but they are not the same word.

---

we speak english, so let me give you an example in english that you are probably unaware of. in old english, we had a word, "goodly" or "godly," and thus the modern word "good." good comes from the word god.but if i say, "hey, this is a good song" i don't mean the song is about god. and if i say, "this food tastes good" i don't mean it tastes like jesus.

---

you really have to stop over-reacting and going into preaching mode.first of all, god's name "yahweh" and not "god." "god" is a title -- a word. and it is the clear english analogy to theos in greek. i was giving you an example of how a word for "god" could come to have a common (and yes, trivial) usage. welcome to the english language -- chances are that you use the word "good" many times a day without even thinking that you are referencing god.second, you totally skipped the point in favour of trying to deliver a religious sermon to me. i promise you, i have been to church many, many times. i have heard it all before. you and i, we believe in the same god. we read the same holy texts. i promise you, i am not in need of evangelism. not especially. everyone has a particular style of discourse. i often get criticized here for mine -- failing to type using capital letters. feel free to respond in ebonics or country slang. i listen to enough rap and enough country (yes, both) to be able to understand you -- though your style may impair your ability to be recieved by others as an intelligent human being worthy of engaging in intellectual conversation. as an artist, i can tell you that this is patently absurd. logic does not a painting make. revelation and inspiration are highly arational things, more tied to emotion and whim and complete randomness than any concious logical thought process.now, please, back to the analogy at hand. do you understand how a word for "god" could come to have another usage, as it did in english, so common that bears to relation to its original religious implications?

---

you went off on a highly-religiously-charged tangent, pulling bible references and quotes. i call that "preaching," yes. if i ignore what you had to say, i'm sorry, but i'm more interested in debating and learning about the topic -- the origin of these words -- than debating how we are to understand what "taking the lord's name in vain" means, or talking about literal or metaphorical communion, or any of that other stuff. no, randomly quoting the bible for things that don't apply is not logical. the bible itself is actually quite logical in most areas, but not all appeals or references to it are. style and content. no, god and his revelations are someting akin to the inspiration for a painting. we make the painting. we make the thoughts. if you have understood god to be simple, you have misunderstood all of religion and god himself. this is actually ironic -- my father is a graph theorist. i have a decent understanding of how higher math works. the proofs are logical -- but the inspiration for them often isn't. sometimes, it just comes to you.anyways. topic. yes, but do you understand that "theory" then comes from "view" which comes from "goddess of sight?" so it's incorrect to jump from "theory" to "view" to "pagan goddess" to "yahweh?" that's about four logical fallacies in a row.

---

that's why i wrote "four logical fallacies" when there were only three steps.

---

you are not an artist, evidently, so i can't expect you to understand.there is a famous (but probably apocryphal) quote attributed to michaelangelo: "i saw the angel in the marble, and i set him free."

---