# Mystery / Music



## ThomasK

I have reason to believe they are not linked (etym-online.com): 
- *music* < fem. adj. of Gr. _Mousa_, Muse
 - *mystery* < Gr. _muein_, to shut (off) [_mystes_ - one who has been initiated]

But can anyone go further and link those Gr. words with a PIE root ? 

I thought for a second that music can create some kind of mystery, but I am sure this is my typical wishful thinking, not substantiated by 'scientific' material...


----------



## Alxmrphi

Isn't it normal to work on a basis that things are unrelated till a connection can be provided? It just seems a bit strange to assume they automatically would be related (I wouldn't have thought there was a connection?)

Maybe I didn't understand something in your post?


----------



## ThomasK

Of course it is a scientific position, but I have strong (and often misguided) intuitions, which constitute a hypothesis to me to be verified, then falsified or confirmed. So I just ask anyone to check whether objectively speaking there can be any link between muein and Mousa. You see ?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok I think I understand what you mean, I thought a scientific method was the other way around, making connections with evidence first, rather than making hypotheses then go looking for evidence.
I am interested in what made you see the connection in the first place? I think if we knew it might help us understand a bit better, and hopefully answer your question a bit better.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, to me there is something mysterious about music: it is like 1 + 1 becomes 3. So that is an intuition, that in some way might make sense, but of course that is not substantiated by the similarity of _mu/ys_-... 

(Yet, I think science always starts from a hypothesis...)


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> I have reason to believe they are not linked (etym-online.com):
> - *music* < fem. adj. of Gr. _Mousa_, Muse
> - *mystery* < Gr. _muein_, to shut (off) [_mystes_ - one who has been initiated]


 
*music*: PIE *men- (more specifically, the suffixed o-grade form *mon-twa).
*mystery*: PIE *mei- (more specifically, the suffixed zero-grade *mi-nu-)

These data from _The AH dictionary of Indo-European roots_ give you more reasons to doubt a connection.



> I thought for a second that music can create some kind of mystery, but I am sure this is my typical wishful thinking, not substantiated by 'scientific' material...


I'm sorry, but I find this way of thinking about words and etymology rather esoteric. It sounds to me like post-hoc rationalisations based upon semantic wordplay. 
As far as I understand, etymology in the first place is about _the form_ of words, based upon sound changes, and not necessarily about the meaning.

Just like _mystery_, the modern word _menu_ goes back to PIE *mi-nu. But does that mean that we have to search for some sort of semantic connection between the _notions _(and not the words) _menu_ and _mystery_.
(On the other hand, even I cannot deny that this menu *is* pretty mysterious.)

Groetjes,
(en het beste voor 2010)

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Hi Frank, 

Thanks a lot. But could you give me the meaning of both *PIE words ? 

As for my starting-point: it is phonetic similarity first, suddenly revealing some "apparent" semantic link, which is based on some kind (esoteric, personal, ...)  intuition or imagination. 

O ja, ook aan jou veel inspiratie en creativiteit in 2010 !


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> But could you give me the meaning of both *PIE words ?


I gave PIE _roots_, not PIE words. I think it's incredibly important to make that distinction in the context of this thread.

PIE *mei-: small
PIE *men-: to think (hence mind, mental, etc.) 

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

You're right, I think in words ;-). But so *mei does not refer to a verb, just to an adj., or does that indeed include shut, close (make smaller) indeed, as etym-online pointed out ? This is my last question ;-).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> But so *mei does not refer to a verb, just to an adj., or does that indeed include shut, close (make smaller) indeed, as etym-online pointed out ? This is my last question ;-).


Since PIE roots are not words, they don't fall into lexical categories as adjective, verb etc. They, how can I put it, transcend these lexical categories. Put less esoterically, lexical categories don't apply to them. Anders gezegd, z'emmen er niks mé van doeng.

A dictionary of PIE roots as the _AHDIER_, mentioned in a previous post, or Pokorny's _Indo-European Etymological Dictionary_ don't give definitions like the ones we find back in general dictionaries. 
Neither is their explanation (for lack of a better word) an indication of a lexical category, for the reasons mentioned above.

Roots are abstractions created by linguists. Nobody ever spoke in PIE roots, for almost the same reason that nobody ever speaks in Semitic roots. I know it's dangerous to compare PIE roots with Arabic roots, but S-L-M is not a part of the Arabic lexicon. _Salaam_, _islam,_ however, are. M.m. for *mei-.
The explanation given is also an abstraction, a kind of condensation.

I cannot quote the lemma in its interity, but AHDIER gives
**mei-3* small.

"Small" here is not a definition in the classical way. It just conveys that the compiler thinks that the group of oldest cognates which can be brought back to the root *mei- in one or another way express the idea 'small'. This doesn't mean, however, that *mei- is to be looked upon as an adjective.

All in all, the AHDIER gives 3 distinct subcategories (based upon technical stuff like zero-grades, o-grades, extended forms, etc.), with (in this case) 2 other sets of 'explanations' (less, lesser, to diminish) and all in all 20 or so different words which are cognates and which are believed to be connected to the root *mei-, among which verbs, nouns, adjectives.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Well, an interesting lesson about *PIE roots. Yet, I think locking in is semantically related with small. Mind you, I am just referring to the etymonline.org information, pointing that out, and then deducing something else that seems plausible to me. 

But then: not words, not roots. But then what? I thought 'root' might be good, even if not denoting the same things as the one we expect. Why not if lots of other forms 'boil down' to that. OK, it's not commonly used. 

But the main thing is: I have learnt some things. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way: I'm most interested in the semantic evolution, I admit...


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



ThomasK said:


> Well, an interesting lesson about *PIE roots.


Please wait for a second opinion!! And a third. Well, the more the better.



> Oh, and by the way: I'm most interested in the semantic evolution, I admit...


I am curious: What exactly do you mean by 'semantic evolution' and how can etymology, which is by and large based upon formal aspects (phonetic, phonological, morphological and morphophonological), help you with this?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Oh, oh, that will take me some time. I think one can say that language evolution always implies evolutions of meanings of words (which I have called 'semantic evolution'). I mean: in every period of time people use the same words but with a different meaning. 
I take 'geheim' (_secret_ in Dutch) but nobody thinks of a link with 'heim' (home), whereas this idea of 'privacy' reminds me of an aspect of secrets that I do not so often think of: the idea of *confidentiality, 'vertrouwelijk',* but not so much in the sense of secrecy but of intimacy. That is also why I ask that many questions at All Languages: because (basic metaphors in) other languages open up other aspects of the same word. Even a word like *poort (gate)* is not so very clear as it seems, so I notice;the basic concept is there, but still there are quite some variations as for associations involved with gates as opposed to doors. Etymology can open up that kind of doors, or close them. 

You see what I mean ? See also George Lakoff, Cornelis Verhoeven.


----------



## sokol

Thomas, the history of semantic developments of words of course is connected to the history of phonetic and phonemic development - but one has to be very careful about premature conclusions, usually semantic developments are influenced hugely by culture (and thus by developments on a more local stage) and it is very difficult to trace them back through the centuries and millennia because we don't see semantic changes as changes of phonemes (or sounds) but only as changes of use; we're on considerably safer ground if we only look at phonemes, which most likely is the reason why this field is much more thoroughly researched.

Here in this case I cannot possibly add anything useful to Frank's excellent explanation.
I think in this case we can safely rule out a semantic influence (in either or both directions) - both "mystery" and "music" seem to have developed independently: both their semantic representations as well as their phonemic ones.

And note that the meaning "shut, close" given on etymonline.com refers to the Greek (!) verb to which "mystery" goes back; it is neither the meaning of the IE root nor the one of the modern word.

Roots aren't actually, as Frank pointed out, "words" as such - they are only a sequence of phonemes which has been reconstructed: what has been established about a specific root is that it is the _ancestor_ of several words in different (modern and ancient) IE languages and that it has a certain (usually relatively broad) _range of meaning_. And that's about it really.

The path from *men- to "music" is semantically rather easy to deduce, the one from *mei-3 to "mystery" however seems to have taken some detours (IE semantic field of "small" > Greek "close/shut" > "closed circles/secret societies" > "initiate to such a group/doctrine" > "mystery", or something along this lines).
But as interesting as this may be, I still cannot see any reason to suggest any connection between "mystery" and "music", far as I can see.


----------



## ThomasK

I have no problem agreeing ! The only thing I would like to add is that safe grounds are not always that interesting: man is always tempted to discover new things or explore new territories, isn't s/he? So it was simply a hunch and some imagination that led me to consider that path - and so I wanted to have that checked. The quest is often as interesting as the result - or: the detours you mention are simply great... sight(word)-seeing tours to me... ;-)

But I value very much your contributions, and your realism getting me back on earth, or stopping me from jumping to conclusions. Just allow me to fly once in a while, it may be useful (and it is fun to me). 

_By the way: I suppose there is also a matter of personality (the urge to break down barriers, or look beyond them, or try). I see other circumstances where utopians bump into realists, but sometimes that 'clash of ideas' is fruitful.. _


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



ThomasK said:


> The only thing I would like to add is that safe grounds are not always that interesting: man is always tempted to discover new things or explore new territories, isn't s/he?


Agreed, but one should be aware of - how can I call it -  the linguistic variant of pareidolia.


> So it was simply a hunch and some imagination that led me to consider that path - and so I wanted to have that checked.


I do realise that you _asked_ about _mystery_ and _music_, not that you _stated_ it, which in my little world makes a huge difference. 
There is nothing wrong with questioning and investigating things. That's  the main reasons for the existence of this forum.


> The quest is often as interesting as the result - or: the detours you mention are simply great... sight(word)-seeing tours to me... ;-)


I think that's the second main reason for the existence of this forum. 


> safe ground ... realism... back on earth


Reality is a nice place to escape to.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Pareidolia: that's why I post them before I spread the message to the world. ;-) 

But on the other hand I am so interested in subliminal communication (not the technique, but the way we communicate much more than we realize in every-day conversation: how much/ often we communicate non-verbally and... intra-verbally ;-) !

To conclude: wishing you all a wonderful year, opening all kinds of new perspectives !
JanG


----------



## clevermizo

ThomasK said:


> (Yet, I think science always starts from a hypothesis...)



As a working scientist I'd like to add I typically make *testable* hypotheses off of preliminary data and rarely due I use "intuition" alone. Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with me saying

"As mystery and music have similar sequences _mys_ and _mus_, there is a chance they are etymologically related." 

Even if that sounds ridiculous, the question is always is it testable.
But of course, you should also attempt to test the *null* hypothesis. 

It seems clear from the evidence in this thread that there is no verifiable relationship between the two words, but I just wanted to comment on formulating and testing hypotheses. 

Also if one thinks that their hypotheses are often misguided, one should posit them perhaps with a little more rigor.


----------

