GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-09 > 0969808229


From: "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <>
Subject: Re: Lines back to Adam and Eve
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 08:10:29 -0700


I am not playing games with etymology,
as you incorrectly suggest. Furthermore,
I agree, respect and abide by "what
the list owner says is on-topic". This
includes the numerous discussions
concerning DNA, which you have allowed.
For the year 2000: Query: DNA
"Matching Record Count: 122".
Query: genetics
"Matching Record Count: 61"
For the year 1999: Query: DNA
Matching Record Count: 106
Query: genetics
Matching Record Count: 92

You have already opened the door to
the history of the biological revolution,
which includes Darwin's ideas, to the present
evaluations of DNA. This is appropriate,
for "Although medieval natural philosophers
tried to approach nature objectively, they
found it inconceivable that nature could
be studied independently from God,
its creator, and Man, its user."
"Medieval Bestiaries and the Birth of Zoology,"
by Aura Beckhöfer-Fialho
http://www.antlionpit.com/aura.html

Religion was a fundamental aspect of
the Medieval period, the Bible and its
genealogies a blueprint of what Kings
and Rulers wished to be part of, (as noted
by their numerous attached connections
thereto). Evaluating Biblical genealogies
is a necessary ingredient in the professional
evaluation of Medieval records, (recorded
and passed down to present posterity), as
they were influenced in structure and creation,
to a great degree, within this framework.

Please note carefully that I do not suggest
the inclusion, in any of my remarks here or
heretofore, of the study of Biblical figures,
modern non-royals, etc.

Respectfully yours,

Tom Tinney, Sr.
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th]
Who's Who In The West, 1998/1999
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
- -------------------------------------------
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:

> "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." wrote:
> >
> > By definition from Indo-European root:
> > gene-, Also gen-.
> > To give birth, beget; with derivatives
> > referring to aspects and results of
> > procreation and to familial and tribal
> > groups. Therefore, by specific definition:
> > GEN-MEDIEVAL
> > To give birth, beget; with derivatives
> > referring to aspects and results of
> > procreation and to familial and tribal
> > groups - MEDIEVAL.
>
> It is fun to play games with etymology. However, it is a mistake to
> equate the 'original' definition of one of the constituent elements of a
> modern compound word with its definition in that modern context. The
> "GEN-" in GEN-MEDIEVAL does not come directly from its Indo-European
> root (the definition, even the precise nature of which is entirely
> hypothetical, as no sample of the Indo-European root language
> survives). Instead, it is an abbreviation for the word "genealogy",
> which is significantly more specific than the hypothetical Indo-European
> root "*gen-". As I said, this can all be fun, but is absolutely
> worthless in determining topicality.
>
> Whatever the definition of the words or elements appearing in the name
> of a newsgroup or discussion list, topicality is defined solely by the
> charter of the group. (Actually, in the case of a mailing list, the
> ultimate definition of what is on-topic is what the listowner says is
> on-topic.)
>
> This list was originally conceived and chartered as a home for
> discussion of medieval and royal genealogy, and specifically excluding
> discussion of modern non-royals and biblical figures alike.
>
> ta

This thread: