Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Jackie A sincere question - 07/30/05 05:09 AM
I have moved on to another Laurie King book, one in which alchemy is revealed as the root of the plot. In it, she says that the literal meaning of the word sincere is "without wax" (meaning, I think, that wax had often been used to hide the true nature of a substance; thus one without a wax covering was pure and unadulterated). I'm not finding verification of this in the dictionaries I've checked. Can anyone tell me whether she is correct?

Posted By: Father Steve Re: A sincere question - 07/30/05 06:55 AM
Maybe not.
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifsincere.shtml


Posted By: Marianna Re: A sincere question - 07/30/05 07:11 AM
I wouldn't think so. "Sincere" is from Latin "sincerus" meaning "pure, whole, natural". This is an adjective with a whole declension or set of different forms for different grammatical persons, genders, and numbers ("sincerus, sincera, sincerum" and so on, up to a couple dozen forms!). If this word had indeed been formed from a combination of Lat "sine" (without") and "cera" ("wax"), it is more likely that it would have remained simply as an adverbial expression "sine cera", or simply as the adverb (Lat) "sincere", than that it would have yielded the whole complete set of forms needed for declension.

At least, that's my impression.

Posted By: plutarch Re: A sincere question - 07/30/05 04:52 PM
that's my impression

I don't know anything about declensions, Marianna, but your logic is certainly impressive.

Can we give the novelist some marks for inventiveness? She has created a clever little allegory which certainly seems plausible: "sine cera". She didn't convince you or Jackie but there is as much truth in her allegory as there is truth in the actual root.

Or, is there?

When the waxen facade melts away, what is below is certainly true, but is it "pure"?

Or is it, more likely, less pure, more confused, more complex, than the mask?


Posted By: Jomama Re: A sincere question - 08/02/05 11:14 PM
I don't think the author 'invented' the 'waxless' etymology.
Can't remember specifics, but I'm sure I've heard it before, from more than one source.
And, yes, I believed it!

slightly disillusioned.

Posted By: Zed Re: A sincere question - 08/02/05 11:30 PM
I believed it too but then it sounded logical.
(unlike words like arghness, she cross-threaded)

Posted By: plutarch Re: A sincere question - 08/03/05 09:05 PM
I don't think the author 'invented' the 'waxless' etymology. Can't remember specifics, but I'm sure I've heard it before ...

Was it Da Vinci who said:

As the marble wastes, the statue appears."?

This could be the original source of the concept, Jomama.

What a transcendent thought!

It was fully-formed in his mind, of course -- when the statue was only a block.

© Wordsmith.org