Wordsmith.org
Posted By: 1 = 0 canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/14/10 02:44 PM
(I'm not sure this is the right place to write/ask, but i'll do it).

In today's word, "canonical", the etymology says

Quote:
ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin canon (measuring rod, rule), from Greek kanon (rule).


I am trying to understand the link between the Latin and Greek and the more modern "canon" (or cannon as it seems to be spelled in English) which is a piece of artillery.

"Obvious" reasoning would suggest that the first cannons were measured with a measuring rod (?) but that's just a hypothesis.

Does anyone know how the word (and spelling evolved to this ?

thanks
Serge
Posted By: twosleepy Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/14/10 04:15 PM
Check this link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cannon

It appears more related to cannoli than canon... :0)
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 12:52 AM
I am trying to understand the link between the Latin and Greek and the more modern "canon" (or cannon as it seems to be spelled in English) which is a piece of artillery.

The link between the Latin and the Greek is that the Romans borrowed the Greek word. The weapon cannon ultimately comes from the Latin word canna 'tube' with an augmentative suffix, i.e., 'big tube'.
Posted By: latishya Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 02:20 AM
is it safe to assume that there is a relationship between the English 'canon' and the Hindi कानून 'kAnUn', meaning 'law'?
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 05:09 AM
is it safe to assume that there is a relationship between the English 'canon' and the Hindi कानून 'kAnUn', meaning 'law'?

I'd say there is, and it is a case of Hindi borrowing the English word.
Posted By: latishya Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 09:43 AM
thank you that makes sense.
Posted By: BranShea Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 11:00 AM
Originally Posted By: twosleepy
Check this link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cannon

It appears more related to cannoli than canon... :0)

So cannoli and cannon come from the same L. canna.
Aye...cannoli Link (I've eaten the missing one)
Posted By: LukeJavan8 Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 09:13 PM
I get some cannoli weekly from a friend who does catering.
Brings me some left over's. Love'em and love him for doing so.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: canonical, from canon to cannons !? - 01/15/10 10:58 PM
A great quote from The Godfather:

Clemenza: Leave the gun; take the cannoli.

The clip on YouTube.
Posted By: Jackie Cannas - 01/16/10 02:39 AM
Posted By: Faldage Re: Cannas - 01/16/10 12:01 PM
Are those cannoli flowers?

See the happy peasants joyously harvesting the ripe cannoli in the early fall sunshine.
Posted By: Jackie Re: Cannas - 01/17/10 03:53 AM
Canna you see what they are?
Posted By: tsuwm Re: Cannas - 01/17/10 03:18 PM
..or, RTF subject?!
-ron o.
Posted By: Faldage Re: Cannas - 01/17/10 05:49 PM
RTFS?! That's cheating!
Posted By: Jackie Re: Cannas - 01/18/10 02:27 AM
RFL!
Posted By: Mit Re: Cannas - 01/31/10 09:43 AM
Sorry, I know this is a bit out of date, and I'm not sure whether this would go here or in a new thread.

Just thought I'd mention that another meaning canon has taken on is, in terms of the lore of a novel or game, what is 'true' in the world of that game/novel, for example in Tolkein's Middle Earth, an example of canon would be that Hobbit's feet are covered in curly hair similar to that on their head, or that there were nine Ringwraiths.
Posted By: BranShea Re: Cannas - 01/31/10 06:55 PM
canon defs.
Hi, that would come close to definition nr. 5 in this list, maybe? Standard or matter of fact?
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Cannas - 01/31/10 07:58 PM
I believe that canon used in this way is shorthand for the topic does not occur in the canon, that is the accepted books of an author or franchise.
Posted By: tsuwm Re: Cannas - 01/31/10 09:55 PM
yes, as in sense 5 here.
Posted By: Mit Re: Cannas - 02/02/10 06:01 AM
Not quite. I did check the definitions given to make sure it wasn't already there (this time), and when you said it was definition 5, I checked again. Completely different things. Definition 5 refers to the authenticity of the works themselves and to whom they're attributed, whereas the definition I've posted is more in relation to the "facts" of a fictional world. I just read the weekly wrap-up thing from that week (yeah, I'm a little bit behind in my emails - 50, in fact), and a few people had sent in the definition I posted, although they always seemed to relate it to comic books, and they're understanding of breaking canon was different to mine (I would only say something breaks canon if it directly contradicts previously stated canon, whereas their explanations imply (to me, at least) that basically anything new that a fan doesn't like breaks canon).

This is all assuming I've understood correctly and you're saying that the definition I posted is the same as definition 5 in that link.

Also, I have a feeling that canon may have been a title or something in some church or another given to a person, but I could be very wrong there.
Posted By: Faldage Re: Cannas - 02/02/10 11:52 AM
If the term is used as in "that Hobbit's feet are covered in curly hair similar to that on their head is canon" then I would say it is definition 5 with the added fillip of that rhetorical device, whose name I do not remember, where a thing is referred to by the name of the thing of which it is a part, as in "Washington announced today that ..." where Washington refers to a spokesman for some branch of the federal government. On the other hand, it could just be a shortening of the adjective canonical, in which case it would still be from definition 5 extended to include things other than the body of written works of a brick and mortar author.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Cannas - 02/02/10 01:04 PM
Metonymy or pars pro toto?
Posted By: Faldage Re: Cannas - 02/03/10 11:53 AM
Metonymy was the first thing to spring to my mind but it seems that's more the other way around. I couldn't find a term for totus pro parte in the Forest.
Posted By: tsuwm Re: Cannas - 02/03/10 03:20 PM
synecdoche
[L. a. Gk synekdoche] /suh NEK duh kee/ (rhymes with Schenectady* : )
a figure by which a more comprehensive term is used for a less comprehensive or vice versa; as whole for part or part for whole, genus for species or species for genus, etc. (compare metonymy) [wwftd]

*see the movie, Synecdoche, New York (2008)

edit: bemused by the definitions? this probly won't help..
wikilink
Posted By: Faldage Re: Cannas - 02/04/10 11:58 AM
I looked up synecdoche and thought there was something wrong with it. Turns out it was just my old trick of not reading all the way through. Synecdoche works both ways. Surely there must be a word that only means 'the whole for a part'.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Cannas - 02/04/10 12:00 PM
Totum pro parte?
Posted By: BranShea Re: Cannas - 02/04/10 02:11 PM
Pars pro totum is one thing. "the crew consisted of 200 heads" makes a sound example.
The examples for totum pro parte are really a little weak in this article, it seems to me. Nobody says: "I go for two weeks to the Republic of Ireland". Just: "I go for two weeks to Ireland". " The Republic of Ireland", can that be seen as a whole and Ireland as a part? I don't get it.
Posted By: Faldage Re: Cannas - 02/05/10 01:06 AM
Originally Posted By: BranShea
" The Republic of Ireland", can that be seen as a whole and Ireland as a part? I don't get it.


It's the other way around. They're giving examples of a larger geographical unit being used for a subset of that larger unit. Ireland includes Northern Ireland, a part of the UK, on the one hand and The Republic of Ireland on the other.
Posted By: beck123 Re: Cannas - 02/22/10 08:41 PM
Synecdoche works both ways: "all hands on board" and "Detroit beat Dallas last week" are both examples of synecdoche. There may be a rhetorical device that addresses just one or the other, but I'm not aware of such a thing. Of course, there may be phrases that express the idea of one or the other, but I don't believe these phrases are "official" rhetorical devices.

Earlier, someone wrote that Hindi must have borrowed the word (=canon) from English. More likely, they are both descended from the same proto-Indoeuropean language, as was William Conrad.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Cannas - 02/22/10 09:19 PM
someone wrote that Hindi must have borrowed the word (=canon) from English. More likely, they are both descended from the same proto-Indoeuropean language, as was William Conrad.

Not likely, words that begin with a c in Latin (canna 'tube') or a k in Greek (kanōn 'rule') do not correspond to words in Indic (Hindi and Sanskrit) beginning in k; cf. for instance Latin centum with Sanskrit śatem '100'. The name Conrad is Germanic, and there an initial k does not correspond with initial Latin c; cf. canis 'dog' and hound.
Posted By: LukeJavan8 Re: Cannas - 02/22/10 10:30 PM
Originally Posted By: beck123
Synecdoche works both ways: "all hands on board" and "Detroit beat Dallas last week" are both examples of synecdoche. There may be a rhetorical device that addresses just one or the other, but I'm not aware of such a thing. Of course, there may be phrases that express the idea of one or the other, but I don't believe these phrases are "official" rhetorical devices.

Earlier, someone wrote that Hindi must have borrowed the word (=canon) from English. More likely, they are both descended from the same proto-Indoeuropean language, as was William Conrad.



Welcome Beck123. Good to see you on this site. Hope you enjoy it.
© Wordsmith.org