[HPforGrownups] Re: Wizards, witches, hags and warlocks- Language.

[dragonsbloodmoon at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 18826

In a message dated 5/16/2001 5:27:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
anglinsbees at yahoo.com writes:


> But you really need to do better research before delving into 
> Linguistics- and I do not count any of the New age Dreck published By 
> Llewelyn Publishing as good research.

Before any more assumptions are made about how much "research" I've done, let 
me again stress that my original definitions were a shortened version. I 
could, and can, say much more about them, but I did not for fear of imposing 
my "new age" beliefs on the group. I was under the impression that the 
question was asked to in order to get a "real life" answer, and now how 
Rowling meant them in her book. As such, I gave the common answers that most 
of us give when asked these questions. In Wiccan society, however, the 
answers are a lot more involved. Since this is not a Wiccan list, I didn't 
feel it appropriate. (and FYI, I am no fan of Llewelyn publishing).

> 
> The definaitions mentioned above are common misconceptions among 
> those who practise new age religions.  Unfortunately, most of the 
> books published for modern "Wiccans" are of questionable scholarship. 
> Very Questionable scholarship. (I can point out so many obvious 
> errors in many popular books- but I'm not about to go into that here- 
> It is not the proper place.)

There are also some wonderful books out there about Pagan history. From what 
I've been able to tell, though, most "scholarly" texts on the Witch Trials 
and such are written from a very slanted POV. Even modern day dictionaries 
define a Witch as someone who makes a pact with the Devil for supernatural 
powers. It's rubbish, but people accept it because it's a long held 
misconception.

> 
> I am no linguist, but I have been told by scholars I trust, that most 
> of the definitions and explanations for Witch, Wizard and Warlock 
> given commonly in New age publications are open to a LOT of debate.  
> Different Languages, Dialects, and poor previous translations from 
> other languages have all caused a lot of myth and misconception to 
> creep in. (Not to mention skewed meanings caused by repeated 
> retranslation.- Kind of like the old game of telephone.)

I'll give you this one. There are many things about these old words that have 
been lost, and tracing their roots is sometimes like putting a puzzle 
together. 

> 
> What is important here, is what JK Rowling means when she says witch, 
> wizard or warlock- not what a classical theologan meant, or what one 
> of Llwelyn Publishings authors "Channeled".  (And there is no other 
> explanation for some of the stuff published!)  

My mistake. Again, I thought the question was about "real life" definitions, 
not how they are in the books. (I also must reiterate, I'm no fan of 
Llewelyn. My perspective comes from learning at the hands of others, not 
reading out of a second rate new age book. But like I said before, I didn't 
think the full-on diatribe was appropriate for this list.

> 
> In any case, I sure like the positive spin that the whole Harry 
> Potter phenominon has put on all of these words.  Kids today no 
> longer think exclusively of the wicked witch of the west, and the 
> evil witch in the gingerbread cottage when the word Witch is 
> mentioned.  Before Harry the only positive associations most people 
> could come up with was Glinda the good witch, and Samantha Stevens 
> from "Bewitched".  Witch is definately becoming a more positive word, 
> tho there is still a long way to go.

I agree. However, it sometimes makes it more difficult to use the term if it 
is your religion. "Oh you're a Witch! Can you move objects across the room?" 
And so on. But, I think that will always be the case. There are too many 
stereotypes and misconceptions to work convince everyone that it's an actual 
religion, and "real" people practice it.

> 
> "Wizard" Has had better press all along.  Merlin, Gandalf, The 
> Pinball Wizard, and Dungeons and Dragons have all cast positive light 
> on the word. Someone can be a wizard with computers, or anything else 
> where a certain skill or knowledge is required.  While thre always 
> have been evil wizards, they have been balanced quite nicely by good 
> examples.

Well, D&D hasn't always had good press either. 

> 
> "Warlock" is a much more negative term.  I have heard the original 
> meaning came from "poisoner" "Betrayer" or turncoat, but I wouldn't 
> begin to pretend that these associations came from the "Burning 
> times"  If they are true, they are probably much older.  The original 
> term in the bible that was translated into "Thou shalt not suffer a 
> witch to live" referred to not suffering a poisoner to live.  The 
> roots behind warlock are probably at least as ancient.  It would take 
> a more serious scholar than I to say.  

The Witch Trial theory is but one. As I shall say a third time, I didn't 
think it appropriate to elaborate.

Toby


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]