(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

[Keenir]

I'm sorry if my last post sounded aggressive; I'm just frustrated with myself, because after writing hundreds and hundred of words to explain something that to me seems incredibly obvious and originates in about two sentences on wikipedia, evidently I'm still speaking gibberish that nobody can understand!

The post you made before you replied to WeepingElf, was easier to understand; the post in which you replied to WeepingElf, was longer and tougher.

So don't be aggressive or frustrated with yourself - you're taking the time and effort to make certain your explanations are understood, which is appreciated.

This is what we call a SYLLABIC writing system. It consists of symbols (which can consist of more than one mark on the page!), each of which indicates a specific syllable. You have to learn which symbol represents each syllable.
Now let's go back to a system more like ours. In this system, SYLLABLES ARE STILL WRITTEN. In the word "pimento" you can still see the syllables, PI, MEN, and TO, and they are STILL IN ORDER. In a line, as it were.

The difference is, in THIS system, these syllable-symbols are DECOMPOSABLE. The syllable-symbol PI consists of a P, and then an I. OK? P + I = PI. If you know what P indicates and you know what I indicates, you can put them together to work out what PI indicates. You can't do that in a syllabary.

But that presupposes that we start out knowing what P and what I indicate, thus we know what PI indicates when using an alphabet...but we don't start out knowing what PI indicates?

Errr... huh? I'm not claiming that any one writing system is innate, if that's what you mean. All writing systems have to be learnt - in an alphabet you don't start off knowing what P and I mean, and in a syllabary you don't start out knowing what PI means. You have to learn these things. But with an alphabet, once you learn P and I, and other phoneme symbols (probably only a few dozen) you know what PI means, and all the hundreds of other syllable combinations formed from those elements. Whereas in a syllabary you have to learn all of the hundreds of syllable symbols independently.

hundreds?

what happened to the use of this?
__ | -e | -a | -o |
b- |
t- |
n- |

I thought thats why you took the time to explain coherent and noncoherent earlier.

So, one rule a writing system COULD have is that, WITHIN EACH SYLLABLE, the part symbolising the NUCLEUS is always written at the BACK of the part symbolising the ONSET. Which in a language like English means to the RIGHT of the onset.
So, to make the syllable PI, we don't just randomly place P and I together. We specifically write the I to the RIGHT of the P. OK?

If we're making our own system, rather than adapting a system we picked up from somewhere/one else.

What? No! No, when you learn English, that's how you write! You are taught to write from left to right? Aren't you? Is this just me? Am I going insane!?

I didn't realize you were describing English; I understood you were using words from English.

Now, the nuclei in an alphasyllabary don't HAVE to be to the FRONT of the onsets. They just have to NOT be consistently to the BACK. Maybe the symbol for one nucleus is always at the front of the onset symbol, but the symbol for a different nucleus is always at the back.

wait...whats the difference between "consistently" and "always" in this case - it reads like you're contradicting yourself.

There is a difference between "X doesn't to always be Y" and "X has to not always be Y". Isn't there?

here's how that reads to me:

Dogs are consistently not always warmblooded.

Dogs are always warmblooded.

Both statements are True.

And for sake of completeness: the abugida principle, which is unrelated to all of this in theory, is that in some writing systems, a SPECIFIC VALUE OF NUCLEUS is not written at all, and instead an onset written without a nucleus is read as having that nucleus.
Syllabaries cannot be abugidas, because NO nucleus is explicitly and identifiably written in them. However, both alphabets and alphasyllabaries can be, in theory.

wait...but if there is no nucleus in a CV, then why do alphabets count as having a nucleus? surely they too are only (at least in theory) purely onset because they are (at least in principle) one sign = one sound, aka either C or V. {nevermind that; my bad}

wait...they aren't abugidas because something isn't written in it? But the people who read those syllabaries still speak the nucleus, right?

I don't... I don't understand your confusion here.

Abugidas don't write certain vowels.

Syllabaries have a distinct symbol for each syllable.

Yes, people who speak LANGUAGES that are sometimes written in SYLLABARIES do still pronounce vowels. Why wouldn't they!?

My confusion comes from you explaining - over several posts - that the onsets and nucleus (nuclei?) are important and must be pronounced both as one is learning them & as one is reading them.

...and then you say that "Syllabaries cannot be abugidas, because NO nucleus is explicitly and identifiably written in them. However, both alphabets (...) can be"

But you also said that, in an alphabet, every consonant and every vowel gets its own sign (at least in principle it should)...so wouldn't that make each V and each C an onset unto itself?

Also I've spent the time since my last post, trying to figure out what an alphabetic syllabary would look like, and my brain keeps getting a 404 File Not Found.

[Salmoneus]

I'm sorry if my last post sounded aggressive; I'm just frustrated with myself, because after writing hundreds and hundred of words to explain something that to me seems incredibly obvious and originates in about two sentences on wikipedia, evidently I'm still speaking gibberish that nobody can understand!

The post you made before you replied to WeepingElf, was easier to understand; the post in which you replied to WeepingElf, was longer and tougher.

Huh. I knew it was longer, but I thought I was going through everything at the most basic and thought-by-thought level so that it could not fail to be understood. To be honest, I still don't quite understand what it is that you don't understand. But clearly there's something, and from the terseness of WE's response I get the impression he doesn't understand either but just got pissed off with me being patronising.

Whereas in a syllabary you have to learn all of the hundreds of syllable symbols independently.

hundreds?

what happened to the use of this?
__ | -e | -a | -o |
b- |
t- |
n- |

Well, that's still 9 different unrelated symbols to learn. And most languages have more than 3 consonants and 3 vowels. If a language has 20 consonants and 10 vowels (hardly unusual), that's 200 different syllables to learn random symbols for, even ignoring the possibility of codas.

So, one rule a writing system COULD have is that, WITHIN EACH SYLLABLE, the part symbolising the NUCLEUS is always written at the BACK of the part symbolising the ONSET. Which in a language like English means to the RIGHT of the onset.
So, to make the syllable PI, we don't just randomly place P and I together. We specifically write the I to the RIGHT of the P. OK?

If we're making our own system, rather than adapting a system we picked up from somewhere/one else.

What? No! No, when you learn English, that's how you write! You are taught to write from left to right? Aren't you? Is this just me? Am I going insane!?

I didn't realize you were describing English; I understood you were using words from English.

I was describing how an non-syllabic writing system works. English in the Latin script and Hindi in Devanagari are both examples of non-syllabic systems. I wasn't specifically describing English, but the description fits English, other than a few quirks of English spelling.

Now, the nuclei in an alphasyllabary don't HAVE to be to the FRONT of the onsets. They just have to NOT be consistently to the BACK. Maybe the symbol for one nucleus is always at the front of the onset symbol, but the symbol for a different nucleus is always at the back.

wait...whats the difference between "consistently" and "always" in this case - it reads like you're contradicting yourself.

There is a difference between "X doesn't to always be Y" and "X has to not always be Y". Isn't there?

here's how that reads to me:

Dogs are consistently not always warmblooded.

Dogs are always warmblooded.

Both statements are True.

OK, thanks for being specific about the problem.

What I'm actually saying is "birds are not consistently always black. In some species, females of the species are always black. Both statements are true."

So:
- in an alphabet, the nucleus symbol is ALWAYS written following the onset symbol
- in an alphasyllabary, the nucleus symbol is NOT ALWAYS written following the onset symbol
- in some alphasyllabaries, some nucleus symbols (but not others) may always be written following the onset symbol. In others, any nucleus symbol must be written following certain onset syllables (but not others). In others, no nucleus symbol is ever written following the onset syllable. The commonality is that in an alphasyllabary it is NEVER the case that ALL nuclei must be written following their onset for all values of onset and nuclei.

Obviously 'always' and 'never' are exaggerations. Otherwise we'd call English an alphasyllabary because we write "doddle" instead of "doddel". We don't - we just that say English has that little quirk. But if those quirks of order were the majority of all spelling, or even just a reallyu sizeable minority, then we could say that it's not an alphabet with a quirk, it's an alphasyllabary.

My confusion comes from you explaining - over several posts - that the onsets and nucleus (nuclei?) are important and must be pronounced both as one is learning them & as one is reading them.

...and then you say that "Syllabaries cannot be abugidas, because NO nucleus is explicitly and identifiably written in them. However, both alphabets (...) can be"

But you also said that, in an alphabet, every consonant and every vowel gets its own sign (at least in principle it should)...so wouldn't that make each V and each C an onset unto itself?

This is really important: 'onset' and 'nucleus' are facts about the language and how it is pronounced. They are not controlled by spelling. Spelling reflects them. Vowels aren't onsets because by definition vowels aren't onsets - it doesn't matter how you spell them. In some alphasyllabaries, there are symbols that let you spell vowels with no onset consonant in a way that patterns with onset consonants, not with nuclei. But that doesn't change the fact that the vowel is not itself an onset, or a consonant. Just that the spelling is treating it as one.

Also I've spent the time since my last post, trying to figure out what an alphabetic syllabary would look like, and my brain keeps getting a 404 File Not Found.

Take the word "pasta".

Now, put the vowels before their onset consonants: "apsat".

Well done, this is an alphasyllabary.

Or, put the vowels above their onsets: I can't easily write it here, but imagine "pst" with "a" written above the "p" and the "t".

Or below.

Or maybe vowels go above "p", but below "t".

Or maybe if there were the vowel "i" it would go before its onset, but the vowel "a" goes after its onset.

Etc etc.

If there are consonants and vowels, and the vowels are NOT ALL ALWAYS AFTER THEIR ONSETS, it's an alphasyllabary.

[Salmoneus]

Thanks very much for the explanations!

No problem! I may not be teaching anyone anything, but at least I'm getting some practice at explaining ideas clearly... and finding myself illuminatingly worse than I'd assumed...

So if in a language there is separate symbols for both consonants and vowels, but vowels are written as diacritics on top or below consonants (maybe similars to the independent vowel symbol) it is what?

An alphasyllabary. [assuming that the consonants are written horizontally, not vertically]

And if there is an inherent vowel for consonant + a and the rest vowels change according to diacritics, it changes the type of writing system?

It makes it an abugida. It doesn't make it stop being an alphasyllabary.

And I think that if you give an example of a natural abugida, a natural alphasyllabary, a natural syllabary... It would help a lot.

Fair enough.

Latin is written in an alphabet that is NOT an abugida. There are symbols for consonants and for vowels, and vowel nuclei are written after their onset consonants.

Phagspa, used for many languages in the Mongol Empire, is an alphabet that IS an abugida. All sounds are written vertically from top to bottom, with vowels appearing in the same line as consonants, and with each vowel following (here: being lower than) its onset consonant. An alphabet. However, there is no symbol for the vowel /a/, and any non-final consonant written without a following vowel symbol is pronounced as though followed by /a/. So /ka/ is just written K, but /ki/ is written KI.

Lao is written in an alphasyllabary that is NOT (in the official spelling) an abugida. Onset consonants are written in a line from left to right. Vowels are also written, but not always to the right of their onsets. The vowel for /u/, for instance, is written below the consonant, and that for /i/ is written above. The vowel for /a/ is written to the right, when word-final, but otherwise above. The vowel for short /e/ has two parts, one left of the consonant and the other above (when non-final) or to the right (when final), whereas for /O/ it's to the left and right when final but above and to the right when medial, and so on.

Hindi can be written in Devanagari, an alphasyllabary that IS an abugida. Onset consonants are written in a line from left to right, while vowels are written above their onsets (except for null-onset vowels, for which there are special symbols written as though they were consonants). However, schwa is unwritten, and instead a consonant written without a vowel is pronounced with schwa.

Cherokee can be written in a syllabary. There are 84 symbols for different syllables, and an extra one for a common coda consonant. These symbols have no coherent, systematic relationship to one another in their construction - there is no 'vowel part' and 'consonant part' of the symbol, and so must be learnt one-by-one.


-----------

Note that these are the 'logical' meanings based on original definitions. Many people conflate "alphasyllabary" and "abugida" and see them as synonymous, and see "abugida" and "alphabet" as contradictory. They would then be confused about what to call Phagspa and Lao. They would probably call phagspa and Hindi both "abugidas", but I don't know what they'd call Lao.

[Keenir]

I'm sorry if my last post sounded aggressive; I'm just frustrated with myself, because after writing hundreds and hundred of words to explain something that to me seems incredibly obvious and originates in about two sentences on wikipedia, evidently I'm still speaking gibberish that nobody can understand!

The post you made before you replied to WeepingElf, was easier to understand; the post in which you replied to WeepingElf, was longer and tougher.

Huh. I knew it was longer, but I thought I was going through everything at the most basic and thought-by-thought level so that it could not fail to be understood. To be honest, I still don't quite understand what it is that you don't understand.

Yes, you reduced it to great simplicity...but at the same time, you also dropped lots of highly technical words in, which makes it harder to understand.

Whereas in a syllabary you have to learn all of the hundreds of syllable symbols independently.

hundreds?

what happened to the use of this?
__ | -e | -a | -o |
b- |
t- |
n- |

Well, that's still 9 different unrelated symbols to learn. [/quote]

??
Unrelated? The point of such charts, for languages like Hindi and unlike Cherokee, is to show the consistency...the B- part is always the same, whether it is part of BE or BA or BO, just as the -A part is always the same, whether in BA or TA or NA. I kinda thought that was the point of specifying coherent and noncoherent.

[Khemehekis]

Whereas in a syllabary you have to learn all of the hundreds of syllable symbols independently.

hundreds?

what happened to the use of this?
__ | -e | -a | -o |
b- |
t- |
n- |

Well, that's still 9 different unrelated symbols to learn.

??
Unrelated? The point of such charts, for languages like Hindi and unlike Cherokee, is to show the consistency...the B- part is always the same, whether it is part of BE or BA or BO, just as the -A part is always the same, whether in BA or TA or NA. I kinda thought that was the point of specifying coherent and noncoherent.

That's in an ABUGIDA. Salmoneus said, "Whereas in a syllabary . . .".

[Keenir]

Whereas in a syllabary you have to learn all of the hundreds of syllable symbols independently.

hundreds?

what happened to the use of this?
__ | -e | -a | -o |
b- |
t- |
n- |

Well, that's still 9 different unrelated symbols to learn.

??
Unrelated? The point of such charts, for languages like Hindi and unlike Cherokee, is to show the consistency...the B- part is always the same, whether it is part of BE or BA or BO, just as the -A part is always the same, whether in BA or TA or NA. I kinda thought that was the point of specifying coherent and noncoherent.

That's in an ABUGIDA. Salmoneus said, "Whereas in a syllabary . . .".

My bad.

At one point, it felt like Salmoneus was saying that the difference between Abugidas and Syllabaries is that, in one of them, the vowels are always written either to the left or right of the consonant -- or the sign standing in for the vowel & the sign standing in for the consonant in the script...

it ti

...and in the other one, the vowels (or their signs) are to the right, left, above, or below the consonant (and its sign)

t i it ti
i t

...none of which would, it seemed to me at the time, would negate the need or usefulness of a chart charting out the combinations (as i posed at the top of this post)

[WeepingElf]

Is that clear now?

No

Oh, I apologize for this rude behaviour. I did not mean to troll you, and I have re-read the post I censured that way, and it now seems quite clear and understandable to me (though I of course don't know whether I did indeed understand it correctly or not, but let's not get drawn into the quagmires of epistemology here).

[regenbogen9]

In the frase ''hermoso día'', is ''día'' a indirect o direct object? How it is when there are no verbs in a sentence? ''Beautiful day''.

[Creyeditor]

It's neither under at least some analyses. You could say that this is somehow related to a full sentence with a copula, i.e. 'It is a beautiful day'. In this case it would take the grammatical role that it takes in that sentence.
Interesting comparison to German:

Schönen Tag noch!
beautiful.ACC.M day still
'Have a nice day/(I wish you a) nice day'

Schöner Tag heute!
beautiful.NOM.M day today
'(It is a) beautiful day today'

Depending on the case marking, a simple noun phrase can mean two different things. The first example with accusative marking is a polite way of saying goodbye. The second example with nominative marking is a statement about the weather.

[eldin raigmore]

I have found one or a few natural language(s) with terms for
a consanguine relative’s spouse’s consanguine relative’s spouse’s consanguine relative:
(for instance [sibling’s or parent’s or child’s] spouse’s [sibling’s or parent’s or child’s] spouse’s [sibling or parent or child]);
(or even more specifically
Sister’s husband’s sister’s husband’s sister
Or
Brother’s wife’s brother’s wife’s brother.)

So, a fifth-degree kinship relation, in which
the first and third and fifth links are to blood-relatives,
but the second and fourth links are conjugal or connubial or marital or spousal,
has a kinterm meaning that relationship in this or these language(s).

(That term is an affine relative’s affine relative.).

But I’ve never found a language with any triply affine kinterms;
such as wife’s brother’s wife’s brother’s wife; or
husband’s sister’s husband’s sister’s husband.

A little more generally, a spouse’s sibling’s spouse’s sibling’s spouse.

Or either or both of the two occurrences of “sibling” could be replaced by “parent” or “child”.

….

Does anyone know of any natlang having a kinterm for such a a triply affine kinsperson?
A spouse’s blood-relative’s spouse’s blood-relative’s spouse?

(Note such a kinterm would be at least 5th-degree!)

What natlang, if you can say, and what is the kinterm and its English gloss?
Can you cite a reference? Does that reference have a URL ?

If you don’t know the answers, you might nevertheless still have a good idea how to go about finding them!
If that’s the case, can and will you please tell me/us how to find these answers?

….

Thank you!

[eldin raigmore]

(I posted this here instead of C&C Quick Questions because I’m asking about RL monotheisms.)

In a monotheistic religion, where it’s believed only one god exists at all (rather that only one is served or worshipped, as in monolatry or henotheism), why does such a god need a name? (Especially in the beginning?)
note: I’m not limiting this question to Abrahamic religions.

Personal names aren’t useful until someone else needs to address the name’s referent.
Ordinarily the first ones addressing someone are their equals or superiors.
This god, if their monotheistic myths are true, never had and never will have any equals, let alone superiors!

So the name becomes useful only once there are mortals talking to and about this god.
Since in a strict monotheism, this only god must have created the universe, and have existed since “before time” or at least for all time, there will be no need for a name for this god until they have created intelligent mortal creatures who need or wish to speak with them and about them.

….

Thanks ahead of time for any and all replies!
And btw, if any mod thinks this should be moved, go ahead — just let me know where it went!

[Visions1]

(I posted this here instead of C&C Quick Questions because I’m asking about RL monotheisms.)

In a monotheistic religion, where it’s believed only one god exists at all (rather that only one is served or worshipped, as in monolatry or henotheism), why does such a god need a name? (Especially in the beginning?)
note: I’m not limiting this question to Abrahamic religions.

Personal names aren’t useful until someone else needs to address the name’s referent.
Ordinarily the first ones addressing someone are their equals or superiors.
This god, if their monotheistic myths are true, never had and never will have any equals, let alone superiors!

So the name becomes useful only once there are mortals talking to and about this god.
Since in a strict monotheism, this only god must have created the universe, and have existed since “before time” or at least for all time, there will be no need for a name for this god until they have created intelligent mortal creatures who need or wish to speak with them and about them.

….

Thanks ahead of time for any and all replies!
And btw, if any mod thinks this should be moved, go ahead — just let me know where it went!

Firstly, I'm going to start off by saying I am no expert, but I've actually thought a lot about this, and what I'm writing is dear to my beliefs.

You are absolutely correct that an infinite Being technically needs no name. Your answer that a name only becomes useful when other beings exist is also true.
However, another point is that the word "Name" is vague; it also implies "definition" and "awareness of." (The latter being the meaning of "You shall know My Name" - if you didn't get the message until now, son, then hoo boy!)
In the sense of definition, a Name is what a thing is. A fish is a fish; it's not a cat. So to, a G-d is a G-d. The word G-d is a Name, alongside His other, more well-known ones.
Because of this, each Name implies a certain function and relationship between Creator and created, and hence, a method by which the Creator does things. They are not what He is per se, but a description of what little other beings understand of Him.
Plus, y'know, G-d could have prepared His Name in advance and just let it hang around until someone was created.

Of course, per religion this is perspective-based.
So, say, in Sikhi, He is called Ikk Onkar - the One. Pretty self-explanatory considering their Hindu origins. He's called Waheguru ("Ah/wow, Teacher!" - Wonderous Teacher) as an expression of the awe a student (Sikh literally means student in Punjabi) before the great Teacher, G-d. Naam (names of G-d and their esoteric uses) is very important in the religion.
In Judaism, He's called Elohim (G-d in plural) - because, well, you thought it was a million other gods? Sike! (Also it's a Majestic Plural, but you get the point.) He's called the Four-Letter Name because it symbolizes His Eternity - it's made from the Hebrew copula. Shaddai traditionally is interpreted as associated with creation - He said about things in the world "She-Dai"- "I've created enough of them! Perfect!" (Judaism has very specific names, with specific meanings that are not immediately obvious for each name. For example, Elohim and the Four-Letter Name symbolize His Judgement (restraint from being too nice) and Mercy (being nice) respectively. Shaddai is apoprotraic.)
In Islam, why is He called Allah? Most say it simply means "The G-d", as He is, well, the (only) G-d. (There are some esoteric opinions too). (Names of G-d in Arabic tend to be adjectives of Him - "The Merciful" "The Patient" "The Endless" etc. Personal names in Arabic tend are often adjectives, even for people.)
In Christianity, why is He called Father? Because the idea of G-d being a Father (adopted for Christians, begotten for Jesus) is central to the religion. Lord? Well, He's the master and people are His servants. Some Christians attach special meaning to the name Jesus as well.
In Tenrikyo, there are three major names, which change from one to the next to the next - Kami (G-d, or maybe spirituality, in general) becomes Tsukihi (Sun-Moon - G-d deliberately acting and causing causes and effects) to Oya ([Loving] Parent of His children). He's also generally known as Tenri-Oo-Noo-Mikoto (King of Divine Reason/Natural Law).

Also noteworthy is the fact that "Name," in terms of anthropology I suppose, isn't a strict definition, as you can see. As well, such reverence of divine names is not unique to Monotheistic religions - for examples, look at Hinduism, Buddhism, or the Sumerian and Greek lists of theonyms.
As well, the importance in usage of names varies across religions. Christians don't really care about specifically Christian names I mentioned; the important ones are already-existing Jewish ones - G-d, L-rd, etc. (EDIT: I AM COMPLETELY WRONG. OUR FATHER WHO THOU ART IN HEAVEN ETC. LORD ETC.) Sikhs will chant Waheguru in Naam Japo (the Name Contemplation) many times in their morning meditation; Jews consider it a sin to say a name of G-d in vain, and so would normally not do something similar. Jews won't erase the Name of G-d, or throw out things with it; I don't know about erasing, but Christians probably throw out a lot of Names.

[Salmoneus]

(I posted this here instead of C&C Quick Questions because I’m asking about RL monotheisms.)

In a monotheistic religion, where it’s believed only one god exists at all (rather that only one is served or worshipped, as in monolatry or henotheism), why does such a god need a name? (Especially in the beginning?)
note: I’m not limiting this question to Abrahamic religions.

Personal names aren’t useful until someone else needs to address the name’s referent.
Ordinarily the first ones addressing someone are their equals or superiors.
This god, if their monotheistic myths are true, never had and never will have any equals, let alone superiors!

So the name becomes useful only once there are mortals talking to and about this god.
Since in a strict monotheism, this only god must have created the universe, and have existed since “before time” or at least for all time, there will be no need for a name for this god until they have created intelligent mortal creatures who need or wish to speak with them and about them.

….

Thanks ahead of time for any and all replies!
And btw, if any mod thinks this should be moved, go ahead — just let me know where it went!

I don't understand what you're asking. Who are you arguing with here?

If you're just saying that nobody would have used the English word "God" until there were people speaking English... well obviously. So what?

[Visions1]

(I posted this here instead of C&C Quick Questions because I’m asking about RL monotheisms.)

In a monotheistic religion, where it’s believed only one god exists at all (rather that only one is served or worshipped, as in monolatry or henotheism), why does such a god need a name? (Especially in the beginning?)
note: I’m not limiting this question to Abrahamic religions.

Personal names aren’t useful until someone else needs to address the name’s referent.
Ordinarily the first ones addressing someone are their equals or superiors.
This god, if their monotheistic myths are true, never had and never will have any equals, let alone superiors!

So the name becomes useful only once there are mortals talking to and about this god.
Since in a strict monotheism, this only god must have created the universe, and have existed since “before time” or at least for all time, there will be no need for a name for this god until they have created intelligent mortal creatures who need or wish to speak with them and about them.

….

Thanks ahead of time for any and all replies!
And btw, if any mod thinks this should be moved, go ahead — just let me know where it went!

I don't understand what you're asking. Who are you arguing with here?

If you're just saying that nobody would have used the English word "God" until there were people speaking English... well obviously. So what?

It's a theological question: Why does G-d need a name in the first place? Why do religions make such a big deal over divine Names?

[WeepingElf]

In the novel The Mote in God's Eye by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven, there is a Church of Him.

[Keenir]

(I posted this here instead of C&C Quick Questions because I’m asking about RL monotheisms.)

In a monotheistic religion, where it’s believed only one god exists at all (rather that only one is served or worshipped, as in monolatry or henotheism), why does such a god need a name? (Especially in the beginning?)
note: I’m not limiting this question to Abrahamic religions.

Personal names aren’t useful until someone else needs to address the name’s referent.
Ordinarily the first ones addressing someone are their equals or superiors.
This god, if their monotheistic myths are true, never had and never will have any equals, let alone superiors!

Okay, are you asking "why does a singular entity need a name, beyond simply a word saying what type of entity it is?" ... or are you asking "why do humans give a name(s) to a singular entity, beyond simply a word saying what type of entity it is?"

if the latter, then it could be a holdover from before they believed the entity was unique (such as a henotheist or polytheist period), and-or it could be a way for them to distinguish it from the - presumed false - entities their neighbors have names for.

if the former question, then...well, who are we to tell It what It can and can't call ItSelf ?

[Salmoneus]

(I posted this here instead of C&C Quick Questions because I’m asking about RL monotheisms.)

In a monotheistic religion, where it’s believed only one god exists at all (rather that only one is served or worshipped, as in monolatry or henotheism), why does such a god need a name? (Especially in the beginning?)
note: I’m not limiting this question to Abrahamic religions.

Personal names aren’t useful until someone else needs to address the name’s referent.
Ordinarily the first ones addressing someone are their equals or superiors.
This god, if their monotheistic myths are true, never had and never will have any equals, let alone superiors!

So the name becomes useful only once there are mortals talking to and about this god.
Since in a strict monotheism, this only god must have created the universe, and have existed since “before time” or at least for all time, there will be no need for a name for this god until they have created intelligent mortal creatures who need or wish to speak with them and about them.

….

Thanks ahead of time for any and all replies!
And btw, if any mod thinks this should be moved, go ahead — just let me know where it went!

I don't understand what you're asking. Who are you arguing with here?

If you're just saying that nobody would have used the English word "God" until there were people speaking English... well obviously. So what?

It's a theological question: Why does G-d need a name in the first place? Why do religions make such a big deal over divine Names?

I'm not sure either question is what eldin was asking.

Your first question seems to have a strange premise. I don't think anyone would say God "needs" a name - who says God needs anything?

It's also kind of a tautology. Everything you can name has a name, because if it didn't have a name you couldn't talk about it not having a name. By definition, everything that can be talked in a language can be talked about in that language, i.e. has words to refer to it. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.

But that's not a theological question, and it's not saying anything about God. It's saying something about people - specifically, it's just asking why people have the concept of a God, since that's logically the same as God having a name. That would seem to be a sociological question.

Your second question I'm also unsure of the premises of. Do any religions really make a big deal over divine names?

Obviously people treat divine names the same way they treat other names, because they're names - so there are rules about respectful usage, of course. But that's etiquette, not theology. And religions with multiple gods sometimes are keen on using names to distinguish one from another (although less often than we might assume, frankly, with one name often standing for multiples gods and one god having multiple names).

And there are various poetic expressions about names. The idea of an unknown name, for instance, is a metaphor for unmediated knowledge of the thing-in-itself, contrasted with the conventionalised knowledge of the spoken names. The idea of a God having many names is a way to convey how complex and universal God is and how many attributes it has - I don't think any religion (outside of weird mystical/magical sects) really cares much about what the thousand names of god really are, do they? The expression is about the number rather than the exact nature.

And if any religions do have onomastics at their core, is it really always for the same reason? I'm skeptical.

[Salmoneus]

Okay, are you asking "why does a singular entity need a name, beyond simply a word saying what type of entity it is?" ... or are you asking "why do humans give a name(s) to a singular entity, beyond simply a word saying what type of entity it is?"

Again, I'm not sure what the first question even means exactly, and the second question is just a fallacy. If something is a singular entity (definitionally, not simply temporarily or coincidentally singular), a word for its quiddity ('what' it is) is the same as a word for its haecceity ('which' it is) by definition, because there is only one 'which' for that 'what' and hence the 'what' identifies the 'which' and the 'which' identifies the 'what'.

[Creyeditor]

Not trying to go full philosophical here, but couldn't you say that a singular entity contrast with other potential but non-existent entities if the same kind? I was thinking of stuff like "There is only one god and his name is X", which implies that any claim that something with name Y is also a god is false.

[Visions1]

I'm not sure either question is what eldin was asking.

Your first question seems to have a strange premise. I don't think anyone would say God "needs" a name - who says God needs anything?
...
specifically, it's just asking why people have the concept of a God
...
Your second question I'm also unsure of the premises of. Do any religions really make a big deal over divine names?
...
I don't think any religion (outside of weird mystical/magical sects) really cares much about what the thousand names of god really are, do they?
...
And if any religions do have onomastics at their core, is it really always for the same reason? I'm skeptical.

(Note: I took this as a theological question instead of an anthropological one.)

Firstly, you're right. Really, He shouldn't need a Name at all. Some of these Names in theory (such as Allah) seem to reflect that - they're more descriptive than given. But because some religions name G-d (either the people doing so, or G-d Him), He has a Name now, so now you need to explain that.

Asking why people have the concept of a G-d (philosophically, theologically, or anthropologically) is not exactly the same as why Names are important theologically.

Judaism, Islam, and Sikhi off the top of my head care a lot about Names - though each in different ways. I tried to illustrate that a little above - though that wasn't my main point. At their very core? I'm not sure, but Sikhi and Islam care a lot. As a tendency, emphasis on Names generally increases the more mystical a sect gets. So Sufis will be all over Names, but other Muslim groupings maybe less.

I don't think they're for the same reasons with everybody.