|
Home > Archive > Yoga > September 2005 > ENGLISH
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
but the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice
yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,
and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that and three would be those,
yet hat in the plural would never be hose.
and the plural of cat is cats not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
but though we say mother, we never say methren.
hen the mascular pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the
feminine, she shis and shim.
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There's no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger,
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find
that
quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy to you that you can make amends but not one
amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends, and get rid of all but one of
them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew speaking English
should be committed to an asylum for the insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a
recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns down
in which you fill in a form by filling it out
and in which the alarm goes off by going on.
So, if Father is Pop, how come Mother isn't Mop?
And that is just the beginning- even though this is the end.
=================================================================
A friend of mine has sent above ,may be some of you allready have it.
Lets see how you would like it!
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-09-24, 2:24 pm |
| Sounds rather Ogdan Nashish to me!
--
Namaste
Dave ©¿©
"Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
http://www.howdydave.com
"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1125344126.521625.301730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
> but the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
> One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
> yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
> You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice
> yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
>
> If the plural of man is always called men,
> why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
> If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,
> and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
> If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
> why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
>
> Then one may be that and three would be those,
> yet hat in the plural would never be hose.
> and the plural of cat is cats not cose.
> We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
> but though we say mother, we never say methren.
> hen the mascular pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the
> feminine, she shis and shim.
>
> Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
> There's no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger,
> neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
> English muffins weren't invented in England.
> We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find
> that
> quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
> and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
>
> And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
> grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
> Doesn't it seem crazy to you that you can make amends but not one
> amend?
> If you have a bunch of odds and ends, and get rid of all but one of
> them, what do you call it?
>
> If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
> If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
> Sometimes I think all the folks who grew speaking English
> should be committed to an asylum for the insane.
>
> In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a
> recital?
>
> We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
> We have noses that run and feet that smell.
> And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same
> while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
>
> You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
> in which your house can burn up as it burns down
> in which you fill in a form by filling it out
> and in which the alarm goes off by going on.
>
> So, if Father is Pop, how come Mother isn't Mop?
>
> And that is just the beginning- even though this is the end.
> =================================================================
>
> A friend of mine has sent above ,may be some of you allready have it.
> Lets see how you would like it!
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
| |
| omjaroo 2005-09-24, 2:24 pm |
| I wouldn't be surprised to learn Richard Lederer (pbs, a way with
words) wrote it.
By the way I have been meaning to ask for the longest time what does
""Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum" mean. A net
search only shows up with your name as if you were the only one on the
planet who quotes it.
Jared
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-09-24, 2:24 pm |
| Howdy Jared!
"Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
"I am what I am and that's all that I am." - Popeye (a great yogi!)
"Quicumque latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound)
--
Namaste
Dave ©¿©
"Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
http://www.howdydave.com
"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125356315.207931.266880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I wouldn't be surprised to learn Richard Lederer (pbs, a way with
> words) wrote it.
>
> By the way I have been meaning to ask for the longest time what does
> ""Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum" mean. A net
> search only shows up with your name as if you were the only one on the
> planet who quotes it.
>
> Jared
>
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-09-24, 2:24 pm |
| "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:YONQe.1270$Xo3.112@news01.roc.ny...
> Howdy Jared!
>
> "Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
> "I am what I am and that's all that I am." - Popeye (a great yogi!)
If you stop to think about it for a while, that really IS quite a profound
statement and it shows great insight!
--
Namaste
Dave ©¿©
"Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Paul H 2005-09-24, 2:24 pm |
| <snip>
....not to mention aluminium!!
| |
| saxman 2005-09-24, 2:25 pm |
| So What does the wide and wonderful diversity of the English language have
to do with yoga??? I thought yoga asanas where named in sanskrit as where
the sutras.
Incidentally in what language are you writing in? ( English perhaps albeit a
bastardized form).
mbw
"puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1125344126.521625.301730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
> but the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
> One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
> yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
> You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice
> yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
>
> If the plural of man is always called men,
> why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
> If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,
> and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
> If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
> why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
>
> Then one may be that and three would be those,
> yet hat in the plural would never be hose.
> and the plural of cat is cats not cose.
> We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
> but though we say mother, we never say methren.
> hen the mascular pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the
> feminine, she shis and shim.
>
> Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
> There's no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger,
> neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
> English muffins weren't invented in England.
> We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find
> that
> quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
> and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
>
> And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
> grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
> Doesn't it seem crazy to you that you can make amends but not one
> amend?
> If you have a bunch of odds and ends, and get rid of all but one of
> them, what do you call it?
>
> If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
> If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
> Sometimes I think all the folks who grew speaking English
> should be committed to an asylum for the insane.
>
> In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a
> recital?
>
> We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
> We have noses that run and feet that smell.
> And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same
> while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
>
> You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
> in which your house can burn up as it burns down
> in which you fill in a form by filling it out
> and in which the alarm goes off by going on.
>
> So, if Father is Pop, how come Mother isn't Mop?
>
> And that is just the beginning- even though this is the end.
> =================================================================
>
> A friend of mine has sent above ,may be some of you allready have it.
> Lets see how you would like it!
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
| |
|
| " Quicumque Sanskrit dictumsit,altum viditur"
Puma
saxman wrote:
> So What does the wide and wonderful diversity of the English language have
> to do with yoga??? I thought yoga asanas where named in sanskrit as where
> the sutras.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Incidentally in what language are you writing in? ( English perhaps albeit a
> bastardized form).
> mbw
> "puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1125344126.521625.301730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-09-24, 2:25 pm |
| "puma" <puma@dowse.com> wrote in message
news:1125868441.831655.175270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> " Quicumque Sanskrit dictumsit,altum viditur"
>
> Puma
Howdy!
I've had serious questions about mantras in Sanskrit for a person who
doesn't know the language. In that case a person is just parroting sounds
without having an opportunity to allow the wisdom to sink in.
--
Namaste
Dave ©¿©
"Ego sum quis Ego sum quod ut est quicumque Ego sum"
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| omjaroo 2005-09-24, 2:25 pm |
| Dave,
Seems Puma was making a joke :-) But then you know that. A google
search of the latin in his quote will bring your name up a couple of
times.
Mantras on the other hand, have nothing to do with wisdom or anything
intellectual. They are about cosmic frequencies. Doesn't matter what
language they are in or what they say as long as they have the proper
resonation. Mantras are a attention focusing device (seed). They can
have a devotional flavor but they are for keeping the mind busy in a
deliberate and disciplined manner. This also gives new yogis something
easy and cool to do so they feel like they are "doing' yoga. Beats
letting their minds rehash all their other mental trash which
constantly clutters up their "temples".
As far as what English has to do with yoga, I suppose the same thing
that communication has to do with yoga. The ability to communicate is a
requirement for the handing of yogic knowledge from on person to
another. Perhaps Puma was commenting on the difficulty of exchanging
ideas which on a good day, are difficult, no less so, when you are not
speaking with the same degree of facility in a language. Or perhaps he
is just plain exasperated. After all everyone knows English is a
XXXXX...
Jared
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
Please do not forget that there is no WISDOM in any BELIEF at all. I do
not believe mantras personly in any language!
It is just has the same effect as a song has, that is it...Nothing
more than that...In yoga all the mantras are in sanskrit..As if
Sanskrit were a holy language!
Same is thru for LATIN also, As JESUS never used LATIN language at his
time...So as long as people are naive,you may always find some clever
persons to cheat! As most of GURUS are cheaters....
With compassion,
Puma
| |
|
| Hi
(sorry to interrupt your conversation, but as is a public one, I opt to
give my opinion)
=ABMantras on the other hand, have nothing to do with wisdom or
anything
intellectual. They are about cosmic frequencies. Doesn't matter what
language they are in or what they say as long as they have the proper
resonation. Mantras are a attention focusing device (seed).=BB
I agree, but I think mantras have another purpose that is, the
vibration of the sound that activates our energies. And in this case,
translate sounds doesn't make sense at all.
Harish Johari has got a CD, called =ABthe sounds of the chakras=BB, where
the only thing that is said is the vocalizations of the sounds
(something like the =ABdo re mi=BB of Julie Andrews in the =ABsounds of
music=BB).
I have been to a seminar where we learned how to use these sounds, just
to learn how to work with the 5th and 6th chakras, where the enfasis
was:
- how to vocalize the sounds (that's why I think this CD of Harish
Johari is very good);
- a teacher of yoga should have its 5th chakra widely opened (with
certain micro chakra opened as well) so the sound of is voice could
induce is students in a good session of yoga nidra.
Regards
Moon
| |
|
| Just arrived by mail my book =ABKundalini Tantra=BB.
(what a coincidence.....)
Satyananda says about musical chakra meditation:
=ABThe seven notes of the musical scale correspond to the vibration of
the seven chakras(...) The best instruments is the human voice=BB
(now I understand the power of the mantras, namelly those sung by:
monks,tibetans, gregorians,....)
then is presented a table:
Latin scale chakra Sanskrit scale
Do Mooladhara Sa
Re Swadwisthana Re
Mi Manipura Ga
Fa Anahata Ma
So Vishuddhi Pa
La Ajna Dha
Ti Bindu Ni
Do Sahasrara Sa
and continue with the beeja mantras:
mantras chakra
Lam Mooladhara
Vam Swadwisthana
Ram Manipura
Yam Anahata
Ham Vishuddhi
Om Ajna
Om Bindu
(yes, the famous OMMMMM...)
Harish Johari goes deeper (he himself was a singer):
and teach us the correct intonation of the beeja sounds and also the
sounds of the petals.
All this means that the most important is not hearing (with ours hears)
the music, trying to understand it word by word (...a mental work...);
but feeling the music by all the cells of our body, unblocking and
harmonizing all the layers.
More important than hearing the music sung by someone else is to try to
sing it with our voice: the vibration goes deeper and we're opening our
5th chakra.
If a music makes us feel better, is because is does good to our
physical body,.. and soul? A cacophony or sound pollution, does bad?
An how about the power of the voice of some singers: Nat King Cole,
Whitney Huston, Pavarotti,... (just to name a few).
Regards=20
Moon
| |
|
| Yes Moon,
What you are saying makes a sense.To me that is it!
Thanks a lot, it could not be explained better than yours.
With compassion,
Puma
|
| |
|
|