Reclaiming "Warlock"?

[Night_Raven]

The one everyone knows and uses, originated from Scotland and it does mean oath-breaker!

[Jennie]

Exactly. As evidenced by the etymology I posted, I believe.

Jennie

[NachtSorcier]

I was just relaying what other people were saying; I didn't say that I believed their claims.

[Jennie]

Mercury is retrograde right now - I was just trying to communicate an answer to your question, that is, what do I think of the efforts to "reclaim" the word warlock.

If I somehow implied that you agreed with such efforts, it was entirely unintentional.

Bright blessings,
Jennie

[NachtSorcier]

Mercury is retrograde right now - I was just trying to communicate an answer to your question, that is, what do I think of the efforts to "reclaim" the word warlock.

If I somehow implied that you agreed with such efforts, it was entirely unintentional.

Bright blessings,
Jennie

It's cool.  I sometimes take things the wrong way.  My apologies.

[Brock]

Vard-lokkur is a legitimate term from Old Norse.  People who want to claim it as being descriptive of what they do are free to do so.

People who want to claim, on the other hand that vard-lokkur is the ultimate root word of the modern "warlock" and not waerloga have a pretty tough row to hoe.

Linguistics and philology are NOT disciplines that lend themselves to amateur participation.  The derivation of modern terms from languages in use fifteen centuries ago is far, far more complicated than the commonly held idea that words which have similar spellings MUST somehow be related.  Even spelling is variable.  As recently as 400-odd years ago, English spelling and usage were markedly different than they are today.

Asa result of some genealogical research, I have a photocopy of the earliest will by a Kirk to have been recorded in Virginia.  It's dated as having been probated and recorded in 1643, and in it the testator bequeathes his "plantaytions in Accomawk County, his gonne, and twelve boeves" to his son.

In modern terms. the son is inheriting a farm, a musket, and twelve cows.  When the son sold the farm in 1661 and moved from the Eastern Shore to the Northern Neck, the formal survey of the "plantaytions" for the legal description for the deed indicated that they came in total to about 125 acres, more or less.  Yet reading that will with a modern understanding of the meaning of the word "plantation" would imply something entirely different.

The further back in time one goes, the worse this this effect becomes.

[Anonymous]

A lot of the terms people try to reclaim didn't belong to them in the first place. Witchcraft, for example. I'm in no way trying to imply that people shouldn't use the term, but it's unlikely that modern Witchcraft bears much resemblence to what the word originally described. Might as well add warlock too, it's already associated.

[Night_Raven]

Well if we look at it more closely, these stereotypings and name imposing were done in a time of ignorance, fear and when killing a Witch was the duty of all God fearing men/women... even if nearly all killed were not even Witches.

I have no idea when Warlock was first used to describe male Witches, as a Witch is a Witch, or to use the previous name, Wiccen(translated as 'Wise One'). So I think Warlock should just returned to it's original meaning and try to educate others on the truth!

[Zorro]

The history of a word is. . . well . . . the history of a word.  There are some who would like to revise it in order to mold that word into their expectations/hopes/desires.  But that's silly, IMO.  One can't change the past.

Silly too, I say, because language continues to change as our communication needs change.  The meaning of a word in yesteryear's world may indeed mean something rather different in today's.  Yesterday's witch may not be at all anything like today's witch.  Yesterday's warlock may have been a traitor, but today's warlock may be today's male witch.  No one owns a word.  A word can have different meanings to different people.

I will say, though, that it certainly helps to have a standard of communication so that if I say pumpkin someone else doesn't think that I mean orange.  Mutually agreed upon definitions are definately a giant help to prevent misunderstandings.

No matter - it's not all that important to me what one cares to call oneself. I do think that for some, certain labels are fashionable (heaven only knows why, though) and so there are those who want to wear it (for whatever reasons they have).  I believe that we all have the right to define ourselves.  But I prefer to look beyond the label to what stands behind it - to the ideas one expresses, to the behaviors one exhibits.

[Rowan CedarWolf]

Just had to say it's nice to see you posting again Brock! Welcome back, your presence here had been greatly missed.