Re: [Critical-Realism] deon

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn--

There are two "de" terms in classical Greek: one is a conjunction (roughly 
"but"), and the other is a suffix ("-de" means "-ward," as in "homeward"). 
Liddell & Scott don't indicate that either was ever used in a prefix-like 
manner (there is no "de-" in Greek).  None of the dictionaries I checked 
showed that either Greek word, or anything else, lies behind the Latin 
"de-": the latter developed independently and the similar sound is 
coincidental.  So "de-ont" does combine Latin & Greek.

"Deon" is a participle of the root verb "dei" ("to be binding, one ought, 
etc").  "Dei" is unrelated to either "de" term in Greek.  The "-on" part of 
"deon" is comparable to the English "-ing" and has no connection to "ont." 
So the situation is rather like taking the participle "thinking," and saying 
that it comes from the roots "thin" and "king" because thinking involves 
mastering refinements.  It makes sense, but it's incorrect.

It's true, having access to major reference sources has its benefits. 
Digging around in the full Liddell & Scott online in order to confirm what's 
in my intermediate edition, to my surprise they treat the verbs "deo" (to 
bind) and "deo" (to need) as *separate* words.  You can confirm this in your 
version (that's an omega at the end, not an omicron); again, the translation 
is tricky.

Incidentally, if one wanted to use the Greek privative "a-" in front of 
"ont," the result might be "anont" (not "a-ont") or something along those 
lines ... which is certainly no more mellifluous!  As far as utterability 
goes, "de-ont" is probably the best one can get.  I'm not sure what the 
actual Greek word for "absence" is, but it might be "apousia."

Thanks,

Tobin



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 09 December 2007 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] deon


> Hi Tobin
>
> Many thanks for this. I'll think about it. I mostly work at home without
> online access to a large instiutional library and only the relevant 
> shorter
> dictionaries to go by. If I want to check out the big ones I have to 
> traipse
> off to the British Library, so it's great to have the input of someone 
> with
> the resources of Yale library at his fingertips.
>
> I don't think you're right about "de-". It is of course Latin, but it's 
> also
> Greek (as indicated in my dictionary entry), with a somewhat different
> connotation: "but, with opposing or adversative force".  My interpretation
> draws on the fact that the "deont" in "deontology" (de- + ont + logos) is
> formed from "de-" + "ont" (both Greek). These are the same roots (which 
> come
> together in the Greek "deon", so either plural or singular is OK) as for
> "de-ont", so I don't understand why you think my interpretation has no
> etymological foundation -- it seems to be because you think that the "de-"
> in "de-ont" (but presumably not in "deontology") is Latin, which seems
> unlikely. Bhaskar puts a hyphen between the "de-" and the "ont" pretty
> obviously to highlight the contrast with "ont", probably drawing on the
> oppositional force of "de-" in Greek. He doesn't use "a-" (also Greek
> ["not"] as well as Latin) I would hypothesise because "a-ont" lacks 
> euphony
> but also because he wants to retain the ethical connection. I'll ask him
> about it if I get a chance one of these days.
>
> I don't intend anything in Dictionary of CR to be "treated as fact". The
> whole thing (the 2/3 I wrote at any rate) is of course my reading of
> CR/Bhaskar. In the present case, though, I explicitly call attention to 
> the
> interpretative status of what I say, as you noted earlier.
>
> Mervyn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tobin
> Nellhaus
> Sent: 08 December 2007 20:27
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] deon
>
> Hi Mervyn--
>
> Thanks you for this note, and I'm glad you considered the issue further. 
> My
> other main point concerns the strength of the connection you want to make
> between de-ont and deon, and likewise between de-ontology and deontology.
> While I'll agree that the association is suggestive, and may have value at
> that level, I don't think it can be treated as a fact.
>
> More on that in a sec.  First, however, I want to ask about a puzzling
> statement in your last post on the issue:
>
>>                             I
>> don't agree with your implication that putting a hyphen in "deont" 
>> somehow
>> disconnects it from its Greek root.
>
> My question is whether you meant "roots," rather than "root." "Deont" of
> course has two roots, "de-" and "ont."  Putting a hyphen in there makes
> complete sense, and I did not object to it.  But if you actually meant
> "root," then you would apparently be directly connecting "de-ont" to 
> "deon,"
>
> which I understood to be the thrust of your argument throughout.  Be that 
> as
>
> it may, the connection hinges on the wordplay between "de-ontology" and
> "deontology," a wordplay which does not actually have an etymological
> foundation (whatever other foundation it might have).
>
> Frankly I'm not sure "de-" was the best choice of privative in the first
> place, since it generally means undoing (as in decommission, deconstruct,
> defrost, etc; literally, "de-" means "away" or "apart") rather than lack,
> for which the more appropriate prefix would be "a-" or ("an-"), which 
> means
> "not" or "without."  So in a sense, using "de-" makes presence primary.
>
> Finally, "de-ontology" is what's sometimes called a bastard term, since
> "ont" is Greek whereas "de-" is Latin.  Obviously that puts still further
> distance between "de-ontology" and "deontology."  Any association between
> the two can only be made through a pun, and cannot be treated as based on
> etymological facts.  Of course, as nearly everyone on this list surely 
> knows
> by now, I'm all in favor of puns, and they can indeed be illuminating
> (either seriously or amusingly) -- but they do have their epistemological
> limitations.
>
> Sorry everyone for dwelling on this matter further, but since the argument
> stemmed from a discussion of RB's writing, I think it's important to be
> clear about what (and how) some of his terms mean.
>
> Tobin
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, 08 December 2007 5:53 AM
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] deon
>
>
>> Hi Tobin
>>
>> On further reflection, I take your point re 'reduction' and in the next
>> edition (if there is such) will talk about 'two meanings' of the Greek
>> word
>> deon instead of 'the double meaning'.
>>
>> Thanks for calling my attention to this.
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
> __________ NOD32 2711 (20071207) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism 


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism