Some more mythology geekery
Or: Let me talk Pan. (Or the other god I know a lot about.)
Folks found the stuff about old mythology and Persephone interesting... so let me do Pan. So, as I said: Persephone is a very old goddess who might well be one of the first in the Greek pantheon. But... She is not as old as Pan. Because within Europe Pan might in fact be the oldest god that we know about. In fact he very probably predates the ancient Greek religion and was just so popular, that the Greeks just decided to keep him in the pantheon.
How do we know that?
This is the moment, where this geeky twink squeals with excitement, because he gets to talk about proto-indo-european stuff. So, allow me for a moment: SQUEEEEEEEEE! 🥳
Okay. That needed out.
So, what you need to understand is that most mythologies from Europe, Asia and Northern Africa you know about are actually decendents of the same mythology. Talked about this in regards of the Roman Gods not being the Greek Gods. But... yeah. So, there was once this culture, who we call the Proto-Indo-Europeans and they had the great idea of putting wheels on things and the things behind horses and then got around a lot. And wherever they went, they brought their language and mythology with them, which is why the Indo-European language family is so fucking giant.
We can see some of their stuff shimmer through in common themes in mythology. Like, almost all the mythologies in Europe and Asia have a "sky daddy", aka a godly father figure who is associated with the sky. He is not always the big guy of the pantheon, but he is important in all the cases.
And while when we talk Greek, Egyptian, Roman or even Chinese and Hindu mythology we have a surprising amount of writing going on that dates back at times more than 3000 years... the earlier we go, the less writing there is.
Now, with Pan we have some stuff in Mycenean art and what not, that hints that he was around at least as early as 1700 BC, though - obviously - we do not really have written sources going back to this time.
But there is also the fact that... One of the earliest mythologies to split from the Proto-Indo-European one is the Hindu mythology. An the Hindu mythology has Pushan, who is not only associated with the same stuff (pasture, roads, travel, the wild and so on), but also has some goat imagery in older versions. Just like Pan. And if you look at the names P(ush)an you can see there is a parallel. Which makes those geeks who study stuff like that for a living fairly certain that those two once were the same god. A god they call *Péh₂usōn. And no, I will not go into Proto-Indo-European language right now.
The word "pasture" in English comes from the same Proto-Indo-European word, by the way.
Current theory goes, that Pan was actually worshiped by the pastoral people living in Greece before the advanced Greek civilization spread. And given that Pan was associated with so many aspects the folks were not giving him up. So, as it goes with pantheons... He just got integrated into the pantheon as was........ though he got split into two pieces. But... Gotta talk about his other piece tomorrow.
Maybe due to the age of Pan, but maybe due to him turning into mostly a god of wilderness, he tends to be a much more openly manecing deity compared to other gods. While most polytheistic cultures absolutely feature an aspect of: "Our thing is that we bribe gods into being nice with us, because those gods are so freaking dangerous," most of the pantheon gods are actually mostly cultured. Even if they are horndogs like Zeus.
Pan meanwhile is a god of the wild. He has this animal imagery (that probably all early gods had) still very present, he gets associated with all sort of wild behavior in humans, and of course the word "panic" comes from Pan. Because it is said that his scream could create panic in the humans.
Enough geekery, lets get back to Stray Gods. Because other than with Persephone's situation I am fairly certain that at least some of this was known to the creators, given the role Pan plays as someone who is not quite inside of the Chorus and acts more as an outsider to it.
78 notes
·
View notes
Europanto is not an artificial universal language that can be used as an alternative to Esperanto, nor is it intended to replace English in international relations. Making use of past experience and new information technologies, it would not only be possible, but also very easy, to codify a Europanto grammar, making Europanto another artificial language like Esperanto. But that would be a mistake. Europanto would become just another elitist language, spoken by a small group of enthusiasts, but totally ignored by the rest of the world.
The dominance of English cannot be challenged. With the exception of a few small areas that have been cut off from the processes of industrialization and globalization, English has become the universal language of our time. Europanto has a different goal. Rather than an artificial language, it is a system for the creation of a new language of the future. It is intended to give voice to the frustrations of the vast majority of people who are forced to use English even though their command of the language is not very good.
This can be achieved by speeding up the process of the internationalization of the English language and by its isolation from the Anglo-American culture. Instead of trying to compete with English, the aim is to cause the language to implode, to destroy it from within. The mechanism is very simple. Nowadays, virtually everyone knows a few words of English and is capable of putting together very simple sentences, but most people are unable to speak the language properly because they do not know all the nuances, the subtle differences in meaning that only a mother-tongue speaker knows. In a conversation in English between two non-native speakers with just a smattering of the language, the register is naturally very low and only the basic message is communicated - often little more than could have been achieved by gesticulating. But what would happen if the two speakers could enrich their vocabulary with words from their own languages or from other important European languages? The worst that would happen is that the level of understanding would remain the same. If, however, the words used were similar to ones in the other person's language or were somehow recognized, then their mutual understanding would be enhanced. This is the mechanism on which Europanto is based. [...]
The strength of Europanto is that it does not have to be studied: to be able to read, write or speak the language, people use whatever linguistic knowledge they already possess, i.e. a very basic knowledge of English and the other major European languages which derives from their everyday experience. Europanto must, clearly, borrow from the best known European languages and "Europantize" above all those words which are most likely to be recognized because they have a common root or because they are frequently used.
source
0 notes