It?s amazing how this poll has hovered over the balance.

One of the reasons why I can?t fully commit to the imperial faction, despite the passionate calls for integrity and standards, is that astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language. Without its element of subjective meaning it is nothing, or rather it is simply astronomy. The word ?conjoin? was loose and flexible traditionally, it could mean any kind of meeting by aspect (that?s why traditional astrologers used the term ?corporeal conjunction? to differentiate what we know as a conjunction from another kind of aspect). In many places, meaning was apparent from context. We can be narrow and precise, and technical, or we can be rounded and tolerant to varying expressions. So long as we understand the meaning, what does it matter? ( I will however, never use the word ?conjunct? inappropriately, being aware now of how irritating it is to some).

?...astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language.?

And doesn?t that cause problems! The debate seems to be about just how loose we can let astrology be. How loose with our astrology? How loose with our English? And then there?s the opposite situation of strangling the life out of them.

God, it's late at night and this thread is very long,..... my eyes are getting sore and starting to itch - must be conjunctivitis I suppose

Look what I miss while I take some time out! I wish I had more votes...

Conjoin every time for me. I don't junct instead of join either. I don't have a problem with sextiling and trining, as to my knowledge, there isn't another viable alternative unless you reframe the sentence completely.

But then I can't bear signs saying "this door is alarmed" either. I always wonder how the window feels.

Kim

Let's make this thread even longer.

"Unwashed" Christina wrote:

word ?conjunct? is also a noun. It is used as such in several areas of academic study, including linguistics, mathematics, philosophy and logic

Is someone doing some wool-pulling? I have read tens of thousands of pages of academic philosophy texts, but I don't recall "conjunct" being used as a noun. The reason is that philosophy requires only ordinary, plain, working-man's language, so the incidence of figurative and/or technical terms and language is red-flagged by reflex (as the frequent subsequent move is to import ambiguity into the argument in an attempt to bolster it). PM me with an example or two please. I like to stay up to date. (Formal logic is another matter; not to be compared with philosphy, as it's 99.99% mathematical now anyway).

For fragrant Deb - would it help decide the issue if there was a separate poll for "effort"?

I take "X conjunct Y" as a verbal rehearsal of the particular combination of glyphs involved in notating that astrological aspect, in the same way that one might read a differential equation as "dy over dx". In neither case is it acceptable in written text. Unless of course "language has evolved" - but I take this little gem as meaning "language usage has changed" rather than what the user wants it to mean.

Coder,

Philosophy has many branches of which logic is one. As far as I know, the philosopher Aristotle introduced formal logic with his introduction of the syllogism, then big skip ahead to the mid-nineteenth century formal logic, ahead again to modern day mathematics-formal logic-computer science. My intention was to simplify and avoid ?big long stories? that drag folks off topic and gives Amelia conjunctivitis. Therefore, whenever I said ?philosophy?, I deliberately said it together with ?mathematics? because of the connection between mathematics and logic (as a branch of philosophy). At times, I said ?mathematics? alone but never ?philosophy? alone (for the same reason). If you prefer, I will unbundle ?philosophy? and just say ?logic?.

You wouldn?t be wool-pulling or introducing ambiguity here?

Back to the topic: To verb or not to verb
Conjunct is an adjective and noun.
Sextile is an adjective and noun.
Square is an adjective, noun and verb (in astrological usage)
Trine is an adjective, noun and verb (in astrological usage)

Is it logical?

Is ?one planet sextiles another? acceptable? If so, then why would ?one planet conjuncts another? be unacceptable?

Good point about the glyphs - I was wondering when someone would point that out.

Christina

Kirk wrote:Gryffindor & Pavla,

You?re welcome. Learning another language is such a long, slow process!

Thanks, Kirk. I think it is not much different to learning one's own language. I moved some years ago from the country of my mothertongue and it is amazing how much the language developed in just few years !

Thinking about it this way - while I by all means agree that language excellence should be important part of life - it may be possible that using correct terminology, which is however not known/ignored by others, may lead to one speaking pure/correct language but sounding archaic.

But I do agree that most of contemporary changes to grammar are not the best - German grammar for example changed few times in last ten years. Most changes were done in the way of making tha language easier, not nicer. Talk about excellence ! But then it is enough to check some chats of not scholars and it becomes obvious that making language easier (even if less nicer) may bring profit of writing more correctly to many.

But I still will try to use conjoin more than conjunct

Hi,

I don?t have a strong opinion on the use of ?to cunjunct? since English is not my native language. I?ve used the terms Sun conjoins, opposes, trines, squares, is sextile Jupiter, for example.
?Sun conjoins Jupiter? / ?Sun is conjunct Jupiter? have slightly different meanings for me. The verb emphasizes the motion, so ?Sun conjoins Jupiter? or especially ?Sun is conjoining Jupiter? would mean an applying conjunction for me. Please correct me if I?m way off the track.

What I?m much more concerned of is the meaning of a conjunction. Can Sirius be conjunct the Sun? ? In my opinion not. The actual angle between the Sun and Sirius can never be less than 39? (the latitude of Sirius). It can be aligned with the Sun on the Ecliptic, but not really conjunct.

It gets even stranger if we say ?Polaris is conjunct the Ascendant? for a Chart in middle Northern latitudes. Polaris is circumpolar, so it never rises here. How can it be conjunct the Ascendant?

Ren?

Hi Rene

Ptolemy?s argument (Tetrabiblos, I.24) is that all rays converge in the centre of the earth, so since it is the relationship between the planets as if you were viewing them from the centre of the earth, a conjunction in longitude does not need to meet by latitude as well. Latitude only needs to be considered for occultations.

(On the theory of aspects I think that Ptolemy's views have to be given a lot of merit, because of the way they integrate with related philosophies, such as musical structures).

I like your point about ?Sun conjoins Jupiter? / ?Sun is conjunct Jupiter?. For example I would be comfortable with ?Jupiter is conjunct the Sun?, but not with ?Jupiter conjoins the Sun?, because of the way that it misrepresents the motion.

Ptolemy?s argument (Tetrabiblos, I.24) is that all rays converge in the centre of the earth, so since it is the relationship between the planets as if you were viewing them from the centre of the earth, a conjunction in longitude does not need to meet by latitude as well. Latitude only needs to be considered for occultations.

Hi Deb,

If all rays converge in the centre of the earth, as Ptolemy says, this could still be seen 3-dimensionally, couldn?t it? ? What is not in line with his statement is the parallax corrected moon which is viewed from the surface of the earth. But even
from the centre of the earth, Sun and Sirius are still 39? apart when they make a ?conjunction? (or an alignment which is a better term for that IMO).

My concern is to make a distinction between a real conjunction (an occultation with an orb of say 3-5? in all directions, but always seen from the centre of the earth) and a ?projected? conjunction or alignment. Especially since celestial bodies like centaurs, Asteiods or Kuiper Belt Objects - all objects with a big ecliptical latitude - are being increasingly used. We would have to say at the same time which projection plane we are using: Ecliptic (longitude and latitude), Horizon (azimuth and altitude) or Celestial Equator (Right Ascension and Declination) to describe an aspect.

I think this would be a enrichment for today?s Astrology. At least, the 3-dimensional view has enriched my Astrology!

Ren?

Hi Rene

I can understand your point. Unfortunately, there does seem to be an inherent conflict between taking the 3D view and that which is centred upon the ecliptic/zodiac divisions. What we get from Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos is too brief to do justice to the scheme. Kepler expands upon it in his Harmony of the World, which incorporates the reasoning of Ptolemy?s Harmonica. If you can get access to Kepler?s work, book IV, ?causes of configurations?, goes into detail on why the earth is treated as a point rather than a body which has a differentiation between its centre and its surface. The Sun?s path encircles this point, and it is the way that planetary configurations unite or cause geometrical divisions of this circle that is ?sensed by the earth?s soul?.

The explanation is several pages long with diagrams. Its philosophical principles are very impressive and well worth reading if you can get hold of it. Please understand that I am not saying that this approach is right and the 3D approach is wrong.

Best wishes
Deb

Christina: So I won't expect an example of the alleged noun "conjunct" from philosophy . But I am a bit surprised tho' that when Deb wrote "astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language." you didn't react with "Ouch - oxymoron".

Regarding your point whether "sextile" is a verb with an active tense, I would say that lexicographic orthogonality (or lack of it, which you pointed out in an earlier post) is no more relevant to determining correct usage within the technical lexicon of astrology than it is to determining the formation of correct past participles in English; or the correct preposition (if any) to use in the Italian translation of "Xed to Y" where X and Y are verbs. And so on. One has to learn the 'language game' in use. (And let's not forget poor Pluto's recent experiences at the hands of committees of astronomers).

As the thread shows, the semantics of conjunction has more variability, and less consensus, than its syntax. Which implies the former will not settle the latter, except by fiat.