0
Elena Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies
The word 'individual' (noun)
I would appreciate if you can clarify this for me, since I am confused about the thought that gave birth to this word.
Individual (noun) = entity, being, creature, person.
But, if we inquire into its origin, etymonline says to us that it comes from in- "not" + dividuus "divisible" from dividere "divide."
Why did the people who formed the word think about the impossibility of 'dividing' a creature, an entity, a person, which already looked like ONE?
Does the term imply that humans "contain" two principles through the prefix di- = two/different (ying and yang; masculine and feminine principles; whatever we call them) and the makers of the word were aware of that duality, therefore---> individual = indivisible duality?
The other option would be that the term simply means non-divisible, but this seems too elemental = sure a human can't be divided.
Which explanation do you think is correct?
Individual (noun) = entity, being, creature, person.
But, if we inquire into its origin, etymonline says to us that it comes from in- "not" + dividuus "divisible" from dividere "divide."
Why did the people who formed the word think about the impossibility of 'dividing' a creature, an entity, a person, which already looked like ONE?
Does the term imply that humans "contain" two principles through the prefix di- = two/different (ying and yang; masculine and feminine principles; whatever we call them) and the makers of the word were aware of that duality, therefore---> individual = indivisible duality?
The other option would be that the term simply means non-divisible, but this seems too elemental = sure a human can't be divided.
Which explanation do you think is correct?
Top answer
Hello Elena I think the word was originally used to mean 'that which is indivisible' in philosophical and religious contexts. The emphasis was on 'indivisibility', not 'singleness'. Later, by extension, it began to be used for 'that which is single', 'that which is an entity'.
- Hello Elena I think the word was originally used to mean 'that which is indivisible' in philosophical and religious contexts.
- The emphasis was on 'indivisibility', not 'singleness'.
- Later, by extension, it began to be used for 'that which is single', 'that which is an entity'.
- In the C19, it became a favourite with writers such as Dickens, Thackeray, Jerome K.
- Jerome, etc as a 'whimsical' synonym for 'person'.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
33 Answers
0
Hello Elena
I think the word was originally used to mean 'that which is indivisible' in philosophical and religious contexts. The emphasis was on 'indivisibility', not 'singleness'.
Later, by extension, it began to be used for 'that which is single', 'that which is an entity'.
In the C19, it became a favourite with writers such as Dickens, Thackeray, Jerome K. Jerome
I think the word was originally used to mean 'that which is indivisible' in philosophical and religious contexts. The emphasis was on 'indivisibility', not 'singleness'.
Later, by extension, it began to be used for 'that which is single', 'that which is an entity'.
In the C19, it became a favourite with writers such as Dickens, Thackeray, Jerome K. Jerome
00
Thanks MrPedantic,
Exactly, that is the gist of it: the original use and the concept of indivisibility:
for something to be referred to in that manner, it mu
I think the word was originally used to mean 'that which is indivisible' in philosophical and religious contexts. The emphasis was on 'indivisibility', not 'singleness'.
Exactly, that is the gist of it: the original use and the concept of indivisibility:
for something to be referred to in that manner, it mu
00
Hello Elena
I think the parallel is with 'atom'. This means 'that which can't be further divided'. Democritus used it to define his 'basic unit' in the universe: everything consisted of 'atoms' of one kind or another. There was nothing 'smaller'.
Later, in Cicero, we find 'atomos...id est, corpora individua': 'atoms...i.e. indivisible bodies'.
Similarly, Boethius def
I think the parallel is with 'atom'. This means 'that which can't be further divided'. Democritus used it to define his 'basic unit' in the universe: everything consisted of 'atoms' of one kind or another. There was nothing 'smaller'.
Later, in Cicero, we find 'atomos...id est, corpora individua': 'atoms...i.e. indivisible bodies'.
Similarly, Boethius def
00
Does that help? Or have I made things worse?
It helps a lot, and very well organised and directed, from Democritus to end looking at the WHOLE, hey don't forget Egyptians, from whom Democritus learnt.
the vegetative soul, the rational soul, and the sensitive soul (Aquinas)
yes, inferior man, superior man and the sage (Taoism) the
00
inferior man, superior man and the sage (Taoism) the human, man proper, ***-man/woman (Egypt), Tamasic, Rajasic, Satvic (Hindus)
Triads are intriguing. Hades, Gaia, Olympus. Hecate, Diana, Luna. Id, ego, superego. Etc., etc., etc.
Triads seem vertical to me; dualities, horizontal. (In other words, 'levels' vs 'sides'.)
How do they seem to you, Ele
00
I don't know what to answer, MrP.
Every time I think of it, levels and sides mix up in my head and I end not being able to differenciate them. Really they are quite the same for me, they are interconnected, they derive from the others, they continue forming the person whatever side or level is on peak.
Yes, we have symbols and geometry helps. We have many available, like the
Every time I think of it, levels and sides mix up in my head and I end not being able to differenciate them. Really they are quite the same for me, they are interconnected, they derive from the others, they continue forming the person whatever side or level is on peak.
Yes, we have symbols and geometry helps. We have many available, like the
00
Sorry to be obscure, Elena! It was only a small thought, and one I hadn't properly considered: but at bottom, I was thinking that where we meet with a 'triad', in schemes of thought, the suggestion is often of 'levels', e.g. inferior man, superior man, sage; whereas with 'dualities', the suggestion is often of 'necessary balance', e.g. yin/yang, right brain/left brain, etc.
'Progressio
'Progressio
00
I would appreciate if you can clarify this for me, since I am confused about the thought that gave birth to this word.
Individual (noun) = entity, being, creature, person.
Well, I could be wrong, but here goes: In North America, or the New World, being an individual is pretty much what's expected, whereas in the past, the Old Word, being a part of a g
00
That's an intriguing idea, Casi. How would you relate it to the etymology?
MrP
MrP
00
Semantic extention, I suppose, notably mass nouns and how they're measured. If the smallest unit of measure possible given a group of things is its "individual" parts, then why not extend that meaning over to other groups, say, people, wherein the smallest unit of measure possible, or indivisible part, is a person, or an individual?
According to the dates given by etymology online (Plea
According to the dates given by etymology online (Plea
0
Related Questions