Hiya. I have a real puzzler here. What are the plural forms of the 12 Sun Signs?

e.x Sagittarius (singular) Sagittarii (plural)

"Hiya. I have a real puzzler here. What are the plural forms of the 12 Sun Signs? "

There are none

They exist singularly. There are no multiple instances of Gemini, there instead a number of different people who have, say, their Sun in Gemini, but they themselve are not Gemini, therefore there are no plural signs, merely the plural of people who have their Sun (etc) in that sign.

A Piscean, for example, is someone who refers to Pisces the sign, presumably the Sun.

Some people refer to the double bodied signs of Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces as the "plural" signs because their effects are to multiply the significations of what they represent. For example having one of these signs on the 7th house cusp can indicate multiple marriages. They are more commonly called mutable signs these days and the "bi-corporeal" or "double bodied" signs comes from older sources.

Thats really interesting, I'm going to remember that when I'm studying natal charts.

Hello

I'm not quite sure if I've understood properly what you're referring to, but if you mean how to refer to a group of people who have the Sun in each Sign, the terms I've come across in past reading of Sun Sign books are these.....

Ariens
Taureans
Geminis
Cancerians
Leos
Virgos/Virgoans
Librans/Libras
Scorpios
Sagittarians
Capricorns
Aquarians
Pisceans

I've also seen 'lunar Virgos' etc to refer to people having the moon in a sign, and a similar pattern for other planets in signs. I'm not comfortable with it though because I don't think it gets the right idea into people's heads about how astrology looks at humans (or whatevers!).

If it's more than just a curiosity question and is really an issue of 'how should we talk to the masses about their sun signs?' I think the public should be given a more accurate understanding rather than being led to believe that they are 'a Pisces' or that there are 'Pisceans'. I don't see why it should be 'dumbed down' as the Americans say when it's easy to educate people a little bit by telling them something more accurate like 'you were born when the sun was in Scorpio', especially now that we have the web where space constraints don't come into the equation whereas they can for printed newspapers, magazines and books.

Regards

H.

Traditionally, there were planetary types. You could be martial, or jovial, venereal, mercurial, saturnine. There were no solar types, and if I remember right, there weren't lunar types, though I may be mistaken about the latter.

Also there was temperament - choleric, sanguine, melancholic, or phlegmatic.

But there wasn't a 'sign type'

Catho wrote:Thats really interesting, I'm going to remember that when I'm studying natal charts.

Something that might negate that tendency is when the domicile or exaltation lord of a given sign (such as Pisces) is found in a fixed sign which would tend to make a 7th house relationship more enduring. If the domicile lord can not see the sign it rules, Antiochus suggests that the exaltation lord takes over if it can see the sign (by Ptolemaic whole sign aspect) and if not that, then the trigon of the sect (really the domicle lord that is of the same sect of the sign in trine to the place in question - not the defacto trigon lords of Valens).

Schmidt suggests that the exaltation lord is actually the preferred lord because of the sect binding nature to the places where there are exaltation lords (they are almost always opposed to the sect of the domicile lord) and Schmidt says that is the reason why most of the planets have their joys in places where they don't have to share power with the exaltation lord (Antiochus calls this participation). Some people on this forum have confused this kind of joy with the joys of the planets by house, but I'm referring to the 2 signs which a planet has rulership over. Each planet prefers one sign over another (Mars prefers Scorpio to Aries, Jupiter prefers Sagittarius to Pisces, etc) and the reason for this is because Mars does not want to serve the Sun (of the opposing sect) but is forced to exalt the Sun in Aries because a domicile lord has the job of host. The exceptions to this are: Mercury who is common to both night and day and when put upon to choose which side he prefers, does the clever thing and chooses to exalt himself so as to not offend either side; Venus exalts the Moon and Saturn because it is in her nature to like to be host and doesn't mind sharing power. The Sun, being too elevated, exalts no one, which pisses of Venus so she dis-respects the Sun in Libra (his fall) and exalts the Sun's natural enemy (Saturn). What you have with these sect relationships is a description of the celestial politics.

What this boils down to is that each chart is different as to which planets actually have control of a given sign / house because of the power struggle (sect) depending upon which planets have control by their place positioning (sometimes called figure description).

zoidsoft wrote:
Something that might negate that tendency is when the domicile or exaltation lord of a given sign (such as Pisces) is found in a fixed sign which would tend to make a 7th house relationship more enduring. If the domicile lord can not see the sign it rules, Antiochus suggests that the exaltation lord takes over if it can see the sign (by Ptolemaic whole sign aspect) and if not that, then the trigon of the sect (really the domicle lord that is of the same sect of the sign in trine to the place in question - not the defacto trigon lords of Valens).

I wasn't aware of this! Thanks for sharing this information. I actually have this situation- the ruler of my 7th (Pisces) went into the 12th and is partile conjunct my Ascendant ruler, and from there, it actually cannot see its domicile. The exaltation ruler of the 7th, Venus, is placed inside the 11th meaning that from there it can cast a trine onto the 7th which makes her my substitutional ruler of the 7th. Quite interesting!

And yes, from my own experience I can confirm that the ruler of Pisces in a fixed sign does affect the situation significantly although, the symbolism of the sign on the 7th cusp and its influence onto the stability of romantic relationships is a very tricky question- fixed Aquarius on the 7th can also be a good ground for unstable relationships, I see such cases just a bit too often.


cheers,

aglaya

zoidsoft wrote:Some people refer to the double bodied signs of Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces as the "plural" signs because their effects are to multiply the significations of what they represent.

How should Virgo be seen in this double bodiedness? Gemini- two brothers, Sagittarius- half man - half horse, Pisces - two fishes, are things I can understand but Virgo usually is represented as a lady holding an ear of grain, not really two bodies I think. Long ago Scorpius was a big constellation with the claws that now represent Libra. And Capricornus was represented as half goat- half fish. If you look at these constellations in summer nights you can recognize these forms. Regardless of which interpretation is the best one, it's still nice to look at.

Eddy

Long ago Scorpius was a big constellation with the claws that now represent Libra. And Capricornus was represented as half goat- half fish. If you look at these constellations in summer nights you can recognize these forms. Regardless of which interpretation is the best one, it's still nice to look at.

You use Sidereal astrology?

As for Virgo, the symbol is actually a maiden and wheat, or a maiden and a bird.

Paul wrote:You use Sidereal astrology?

As for Virgo, the symbol is actually a maiden and wheat, or a maiden and a bird.

In all fairness I have to admit that I don't use signs and houses (but only aspects, like Kepler proposed). I doubt the use of the pictoral symbolism whether it is for sidereal or tropical astrology. However I have no intentions to call the effectiveness of double signs in question in this discussion. For expressing any of my doubts, I go to the philosophy section of the forum. My question here must be seen in the light of 'astro- mythological/cultural interest rather than for use in practice.

The English word 'maiden' didn't come up in my mind at the moment. By the way I believe that originally only the ear of wheat was the constellation and that the addition of the maiden was a christian influence, but I'm not sure. I'll have a look in Hinckley Allen's 'Star Lore'.

In all fairness I have to admit that I don't use signs and houses (but only aspects, like Kepler proposed). I doubt the use of the pictoral symbolism whether it is for sidereal or tropical astrology. However I have no intentions to call the effectiveness of double signs in question in this discussion. For expressing any of my doubts, I go to the philosophy section of the forum. My question here must be seen in the light of 'astro- mythological/cultural interest rather than for use in practice.

The English word 'maiden' didn't come up in my mind at the moment. By the way I believe that originally only the ear of wheat was the constellation and that the addition of the maiden was a christian influence, but I'm not sure. I'll have a look in Hinckley Allen's 'Star Lore'.

Well my point was really more that in tropical the signs are unrelated to the constellations. I don't know which came first though, did the symbolism and meaning of the signs come from the idea behind signs or from the constellations? If not the latter, then it wouldnt' matter what part of what constellation was overlapping. That's all I was really trying to ascertain.