-1

To name the gender of your offspring, why relate to sky terminology?

Son/Zoon/Sohn vs Sun/Zon/Sonne

Dochter/Tochter/Daughter vs Ochtend and Dageraad/Tag/Day

Compare this with: Mother earth: matter Father sky: feather

I would assume it to come from the metaphores for the parents: matter and feather.

So the family tree is based on the Ancient divinity family tree.

Earth (matter-mother) and sky feather-father produce Sun (Son) and dageraad (daybreak-daughter).

Compare nature with Greek andros (man) and neter (Ancient Egyptian god).

In my spare time I research unusual cognates based on the idea that the concrete world served as a metaphore for abstract ideas like human family relations in this case. I have to say by asking questions like this on the Linguistic Stack Exchange my reputation there was ruined by people who can not imagine such reasons for relations between words. I have hopes the philosophy community can provide insights that can help prove or disprove such relations.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

The roots are unrelated. (Btw questions of this type are easily resolved using a lexicon or Wiktionary.)

If you enjoy conceptual investigations of etymological roots you might be interested in Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.

Improve this answer
10
  • +1 Good answer but the question doesn't belong here.
    – Geoffrey Thomas ♦
    Commented Oct 31, 2018 at 21:48
  • The question does belong here because linguistics historically is part of the philosophical disciplines. I specifically ask pilosophers to answer the question, not schooled linguists who have a too narrow view on questions regarding the reasons why we say what we say.
    – Ajagar
    Commented Oct 31, 2018 at 22:00
  • @guest1806 Thank you for the answer. Simply staying the roots are unrelated and referring to lexicons is exactly not what is asked. This question is asked based on comparative etymology not historical linguistics. What if this method of finding cognates by different methods than historical linguistics, what rammifications would that have dor our understanding of the origin and use of language.
    – Ajagar
    Commented Oct 31, 2018 at 22:01
  • Wiktionary and lexicons do not look at contextual relationships based on metaphores for instance. Historical linguistics only looks at meaning, translations and sound changes limiting the range of possible word use changes. This limits the philosophy (love for wisdom) dramatically and suffocates pioneering work. The historical linguistic model is incomplete and insufficiënt to explain linguistics completely. Example, why would a word originate from Ancient Greek only because that is the language the word was first written down in.
    – Ajagar
    Commented Oct 31, 2018 at 22:09
  • 1
    Geoff. - I certainly agree the question is asked from a position of little knowledge about the topic, but I didn't vote to close because serious philosophers (e.g. Heidegger) do think about historical linguistics. ——— Ajagar - if this is genuinely a topic that interests you, you need to get an introductory text on historical linguistics and the comparative method. You don't have the proper tools to understand the answer to your question.
    – guest1806
    Commented Oct 31, 2018 at 22:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .