Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Hinduismus" differant
Content deleted Content added
m bot: replace user signature per Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag with user permission |
m bot: replace user signature per Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag |
||
Linea 7:
::It's very good to have an article on this.
::I ''think'' I disagree with Iustinus about the name. ''Religio Indica'' might be translated as "the Indian religion", whereas, as we know, there are several. Thus, although the words Indian and Hindu are identical in origin, it is useful that we can distinguish them. I would say either ''Induica'' or ''Hinduica'' would be fine: unfortunately I don't have a precedent to cite.
::Since we know a lot more about Hindu religion than the Greeks and Romans did, I don't think we can rely on them for our names. It may often be best to copy over names and technical terms directly from the Sanskrit form, as you have done with ''karma'' etc.
:::Hmm...You have a point there. The Romans had a lot of trouble understanding other religions (just look at how they misunderstood the [[Religio Germanica|Aesir]]: [[Othinus|Odin]] = [[Mercurius|Mercury]]!). And the less said about the attidute of mediaeval Latin writers regarding other religions, the better! [[Usor:LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs|LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs]] 22:52, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
::::Leighvs, what are you basing your assessment of the medaeval attitude concerning religions on? [[Usor:Alexanderr|Alexanderr]] 23:26, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Linea 15:
Alright, then. It is true that ''dharma'' is a technical term, and so perhaps should not be translated. BUt the historical connection to ''pietas'' should at least be noted (the Romans perhaps misunderstood Hinduism, but surely Ashoka did not!) Likewise throughout the article, I would suggest that when there is an ancient connection to be made, it should be noted. People who read Latin generally, even if they do not always understand the world through the filter of ancient literature, at least tend to be highly interested in such things. And I think your criticism of the Roman understanding of Germanic religion is unwarranted: OUR understanding is strongly filtered by the Norse sagas written down nearly a millenium later. It is usually understood that in Roman times, Tyr was the true head of the pantheon, and Odinn was more a god of magic. I'm sure scholars of this subject could adduce more details for or against this theory from other germanic sources that survive. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] 18:05, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
:Of course, I agree that we need to make connections with Greek and Roman names and knowledge wherever we can. This is one thing that Vicipaedia ought to do much better than any "rivals"!
Would pietas get across the idea of dharma? Having looked on the page on en:wiki, it seems that the term is almost untranslatable (λογος or maybe the Biblical sense of κοσμος would be nearer...), perhaps he just made a compromise with the translation. Yes, I think the article could do with a section on the historical development of the religion, and dharma should have an article of its own. I only created this article to get rid of a red link, now I am doing wider reading; hurrah for Vicipedia! Iustine, you may well be right about [[Tyr]], I have just noticed the etymological connection to the PIE *deywos, and therefore [[Zeus]], [[Iuppiter]] and Hinduism's very own Devas. Perhaps I should stop going to lectures and tutorials and edit vicipedia all day. I am learning so much... [[Usor:LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs|LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs]] 22:54, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
| |||