# Etymology of 'religion'



## jana.bo99

Hi to all,

I know that means to believe in God, but want to know exact translation.

Where is the word from?

Thank you,
jana.bo


----------



## Hulalessar

It is from the Latin _religio_ meaning respect for the divine.


----------



## Outsider

My understanding was that etymologically the word _religio_ was a compound, _re_ (again) + _ligio_ (connection) = reconnection.


----------



## CapnPrep

Outsider said:


> My understanding was that etymologically the word _religio_ was a compound, _re_ (again) + _ligio_ (connection) = reconnection.


Seems to be the prevailing view (Lewis & Short):


> Concerning the etymology of this word, various opinions were prevalent among the ancients. Cicero derives it from _rellĕgere_, [...] whereas Servius, Lactantius, Augustine, al., assume _religare_ as the primitive [...] Modern etymologists mostly agree  with this latter view, assuming as root _lig,_ to bind, whence also_ lic-tor_, _lex_, and _ligare_; hence, _religio_ sometimes means the same as _obligatio_.


----------



## jana.bo99

Hi to all,

religio - divine. 

I should know Latine language first and then study other languages.

Thank you all for explanation.


----------



## cobusteanu

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary _religion_ comes from the Latin re+ligio (supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice), suggesting re+ligare (to tie out of the way) as root which takes us in turns to ligatus, past participle of ligare (to bind, tie); akin to Albanian lidh (I tie)


----------



## ThomasK

Gary Searle in _Dangerous Words. Talking About God In An Age of Fundamentalism_ (Trumpeter, 2007, p. 110-3) refers to another hypothesis, whereby (...) _re-ligens_ would be the opposite of _neg-ligens,_ neglect, and thus would refer to some degree of care. In that connection he refers to one Walter Skeat, who thinks there could be a link with _di-ligens_, meaning something like _careful_.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> Gary Searle in _Dangerous Words. Talking About God In An Age of Fundamentalism_ (Trumpeter, 2007, p. 110-3) refers to another hypothesis, whereby (...) _re-ligens_ would be the opposite of _neg-ligens,_ neglect, and thus would refer to some degree of care. In that connection he refers to one Walter Skeat, who thinks there could be a link with _di-ligens_, meaning something like _careful_.


Sounds like philosophers' talk (filosofenpraatjes). Do they have linguistic arguments to support their arguments?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

He only considers that a hypothesis, and he gives some arguments to corroborate that thesis. They seem just interesting, and whether it is valid or not, is another issue. In the meantime it may be useful as a hypothesis, and as inspiration for exploring the word's meaning. 

Scientific hypotheses work just like that, I think: they direct investigation but do not pretend to be truthful as such...


----------



## Frank06

ThomasK said:


> He only considers that a hypothesis, and he gives some arguments to corroborate that thesis.


Which arguments?



> They seem just interesting, and whether it is valid or not, is another issue. In the meantime it may be useful as a hypothesis, and as inspiration for exploring the word's meaning.


I thought we were exploring the word's etymology... 



> Scientific hypotheses work just like that, I think: they direct investigation but do not pretend to be truthful as such...


They work indeed with arguments, not with sheer repetions.

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Ok, but aren't you making objections to etymological hypotheses here ? I did not explain or translate the full reasoning from the book, but it was based on the link with _diligens_ and _necligens_... And that is an argument, isn't it ?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> Ok, but aren't you making objections to etymological hypotheses here ?


I really think that our understanding of what etymology is about differs quite a lot. Which etymological hypothesis are you talking about? In your post #7 I don't see anything that even comes close to an etymological explanation.
And what does a book about religion (by Gary Eberle) has to do with etymology in the first place? 
Listen, I am willing to accept anything, but you need to give sound arguments. 

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

I think etymology is trying to explain how words come about. By establishing (suggesting) links between different words that seem to have a common root. See #7. 
The book suggests an etymological hypothesis, but it might not be sound, that is fine with me. There is a lot of poetry that is not 'sound' or good, but somehow useful, though not in a strictly poetical or literary way.


----------



## Cagey

The OED's comment on the etymology of _religion_ is illuminating. It points out what can be at stake in such a discussion, apart from establishing the history of a word. a. AF. _religiun _(11th c.), F. _religion_, or ad. L. _religion-em_, of doubtful etymology, by Cicero connected with _relegere_ to read over again, but by later authors with _religare_ to bind, RELIGATE (see Lewis and Short, s.v.); the latter view [the association with a word meaning 'to bind'] has usually been favoured by modern writers in explaining the force of the word by its supposed etymological meaning. [Underlining added].​


----------



## ThomasK

The interesting point then is: does it make sense to mention the hypotheses ? But I suppose we'd need another forum for that...


----------

