Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on If assūmptiō = 'take up', then can ad- (prefix) = 'up'? But why, when super- = 'up'?

Parent

If assūmptiō = 'take up', then can ad- (prefix) = 'up'? But why, when super- = 'up'?

+0
−3
  1. Are these definitions correct? Even though p. 262 below (bottom scan) doesn't list "take up" as a meaning of assūmptiō?

(13th, from Latin assūmptiō, the act of taking up, from Latin assūmere, which is ... to assume).

A little on etymology: the word “assumption” comes from the Latin “assumptio” which means “a taking up” or “receiving” which refers to the Virgin Mary being taken up to heaven.

"up" here appears spatial to me, because it "refers to the Virgin Mary being taken up to heaven", and "The heavens are higher than the earth" (Isa. 55:9). "For as the heaven is high above the earth..." (Psa. 103:11).

  1. I always thought that ad- (prefix) meant SOLELY "to", and sup- meant SOLELY "up"! If assūmptiō = 'take up', then does ad- ALSO mean "up" (+ its other meanings like 'to')? Again, p. 2 below (first scan below) doesn't list this meaning.

  2. If so, why did ad- mean both 'to' + 'up', when sup- already meant "up"?

Image alt text

Oxford Latin Dictionary (2 edn, 2012). Above p 2. Below p 209.

Image alt text

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

x-post https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18611/if-ass%C5%ABmpti%C5%8D-take-up-then-can-ad-pre... (1 comment)
Post
+1
−0

Indo-European spatial prepositions, when analyzed across all attested languages, are rich in beautiful, unexpected relationships[1].

You could think that the spatial relationships (above, below, beside, etc.) are independent of the language studied, but that is not so. Like everything in language, the world is first articulated, in a language specific way, into concepts (e.g., spatial relationships worth naming) and then each concept is articulated again into a sequence of meaningless sounds that form the word to stand for that concept (e.g., a spatial preposition).

When you try to translate those prepositions into another language, you often end up with lots of synonymy and homonymy, but that is largely only apparent - because the concepts do not match. What appears to be blatant synonymy on one side of a translation may involve very little semantic overlap in the other language. The confusing effect is caused by assuming certain arbitrary context during the translation and then contradicting that by assuming that the translation covers the entire lexical unit in all possible contexts. With grammatical words such as prepositions, translation word-for-word doesn't tend to work. They are very much language dependent and context dependent, even more than nouns or verbs.

Latin "ad" can be a translation, in certain contexts, of any of English "at", "on", "toward, "among", "against" (plus of various temporal and other relationships as well). This is entirely unsurprising. There is not a 1-1 mapping between spatial concepts in English and spatial concepts in Latin.

I did not list "above" nor "up"[2], though. If you focus on "assumptio" = "taking up", this occurrence of "up" is not a spatial one at all. As such it does not approach the possible spatial meanings of "super" ("above", "over", "beyond") at all.

So while apparent synonymy between spatial prepositions, especially if freely moving back and forth between two languages is extremely common to find, this question is not an example of one.


  1. Latin "sub" and "super" are supposed to have originated from the same root in Proto-Indo-European. Topsy-turvy, isn't it? ↩︎

  2. "up" = "toward the above" in one of its spatial meanings. It can also mean "along", and then there are non-spatial meanings. ↩︎

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Thanks as always! "If you focus on "assumptio" = "taking up", this occurrence of "up" is not a spatia... (3 comments)
Thanks as always! "If you focus on "assumptio" = "taking up", this occurrence of "up" is not a spatia...
PSTH‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Thanks as always! "If you focus on "assumptio" = "taking up", this occurrence of "up" is not a spatial one at all. " So what does "up" mean in "taking up"? "up" appears spatial to me, because "taking up" "refers to the Virgin Mary being taken up to heaven." And "The Bible also says, "The heavens are higher than the earth" (Isa. 55:9). "For as the heaven is high above the earth..." (Psa. 103:11)."

Jirka Hanika‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Well, you may well be right and I wrong about this. Undoubtedly, some uses of "take up" are spatial ("Take up the carpet."), others are not ("He took up basket weaving [as a hobby].")

Is heaven a place - literally? metaphorically? If it is, does it lie in the same direction as the sky? ("Sky" and "heaven" are often even given as synonyms of each other.) If it is so, then "take up" is certainly spatial in the context which we are discussing.

Both the Latin and English words are a translation of Greek μετατίθημι which means "transfer" or "place differently"; the verb does not imply any direction of the transfer.

The Latin preposition "ad" in "assumptio" does not mean "elsewhere" (like in Green) or "toward the sky" (like, I'm starting to understand, in English), but "toward the actor (God)".

Jirka Hanika‭ wrote over 1 year ago

I just checked, as a random sample, Luke 24:51 in Vulgate (the most popular Latin translation I'm aware of) and its counterpart of the English "take up" isn't any cognate of "assumption"; there's "et factum est dum benediceret illis recessit ab eis et ferebatur in caelum", so similarly to Greek there's just "...carried into heaven". Not "up to", not "toward oneself", but simply "into".

Mark 16:19 has "adsumptus est in caelum" in the Vulgate, and a variety of English translations, all with "up". (went up / was carried/taken/received up). Here the original has "ἀνελήμφθη" whatever that meant.

Different verses, different translations, different languages might tell entirely different stories (use different spatial metaphors - if we even assume that the usage is even metaphoric).
So perhaps this question actually is about the spatial concepts not matching up across languages - because they are different languages.