Path: shell.portal.com!usenet From: tyagI@houseofkaos.Abyss.coM (tyagi mordred nagasiva) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi Subject: Re: Labels and Words Date: 12 Oct 1994 02:31:48 GMT Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 34 Message-ID: <37fhqk$nhl@news1.shell> References: <16394ANKBIKPIYNNXDT@met.com> <10OCT94.12180400.0033@ESAMATC.LIB.MATC.EDU> <11OCT94.21782888.0031@ESAMATC.LIB.MATC.EDU> Reply-To: Raven NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com [from alt.pagan: Raven ] oneal@astro.psu.edu (Doug O'Neal) writes: | Raven writes: | |> Andrea, I'm happy to see argument backed by dictionary citations. But |> the citations you're giving trace the Old English source-word, not the |> Latin at all. You're saying "not quite", but not addressing the issue. |> The better argument would be whether MALEFICIUM or VENEFICIUM was the |> correct Latin word for Witch(craft), and that's where sources differ. | | Could you explain why there must be an exact Latin equivalent if it's | a Celtic and/or Old English concept? Gee, have we decided that ONLY the British-Isles Celts had "witches"? And are we going to stop referring to the executions on the European continent as "witch-burnings [hangings, stonings, etc]"? Kindly remember that a major source for what is now called "Wicca" was C.G. Leland's ARADIA, concerning *Italian* witchcraft. Leo Martello's WITCHCRAFT, THE OLD RELIGION, details his tradition's *Sicilian* roots. The Latin word, and concept, were around long before the Saxons invaded England. Much debate about the proper Latin word for "witch" comes from the King James Bible's translation "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", the question being whether the original word was correctly given as "witch" or mis-translated due to James's own paranoid witch-hatred. The Bible used Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, long before it ever had an English version -- and it wasn't about the Celts -- but it had the concept of "witchcraft", even so. -- Raven (JSingle@Music.Lib.MATC.Edu). [All standard disclaimers apply]