I swear there has been another monster on a boat slowly killing crew movie in the last 20 years but I cannot recall the name. I remember it being better than this one.
That’s beside the point here. The story exists and the etymology of Magus helps contextualize an often overlooked detail, that the three wise men were zoroastrian priests. Somewhat related XKCD - what-if.xkcd.com/25/
This is irrelevant to a discussion of etymology. Even if you don’t believe in the physical existence of a the man, he exists as a significant literary figure. Tom Sawyer didn’t actually exist either, but we should be able to speak about his whitewashing trickery without pedant trolls butting in. You’re not edgy. You’re not enlightened. You’re not even technically correct. You’re just an asshole.
Their temples similarly featured a blazing fire in the middle which was to be kept burning indefinitely. You can see some of these on Sassanid pre-islamic coinage although the quality of the strikes leaves something to be desired.
Old Arabian speaks “majus” because they lack a hard G sound, similar to Japanese lacking L sound
This isn't quite right. We start with Old Persian (not Arabic) maguš, pronounced like mag-ush. That gets loaned into Ancient Greek as μάγος (mágos), originally referring to Zoroastrian priests and then generally to magicians, sorcerers, and tricksters in general. This gets carried over to Latin as magus (still pronounced with a 'hard' g). The plural of this form is magi, pronounced in Antiquity as mag-ee. As we enter into the Middle Ages, some sound changes happen and most Latin pronunciations soften the G, producing something like maj-ee. At some point in Middle English, the Latin -i plural ending gets replaced with the native English -es plural, producing mages . The singular mage is then derived from that. There's also undoubtedly an influence from French, where an -age ending would always be pronounced with a soft G (ie, the word age).
Looking a bit deeper, the Bible plays a big role here, as the plural of the Greek word, μάγοι (magoi) is used in the original text of Matthew 2:1. That gets translated in the Latin Vulgate as magi, and then I'd presume a Middle English gospel translation as 'mages'. The singular 'mage' then gets derived from that.
I didn’t try to imply that we should start with arabic, or that that is the source of the current spelling, I left that arabic bit there because of the wiki page being Majus. I did try to be clear in the title: “derives from magush, the old persian name(…)”.
Ah, my bad there, I though you were implying that the reason why the English word has a soft G is because Arabic doesn't have a hard G sound. Those are actually independent developments. Arabic actually used to have a standard hard G sound (and in Egypt it still does!), but it shifted to the J sound at some point (wanna say vaguely Middle Ages?).
Zoroastrianism is centered around the Persian language, not Arabic. Persian is a Indo European language like Sanskrit, English, Celtic, and Russian instead of Afro-Asiatic like Arabic. That's why so n many magic associated words have the same PIE root *magh- Its root concept is to have power to enforce will.
Jinn (Arabic: جن, jinn) – also romanized as djinn or anglicized as genies – are invisible creatures in early religion in pre-Islamic Arabia and later in Islamic culture and beliefs. Like humans, they are accountable for their deeds, can be either believers (muslims) or unbelievers (kafir); depending on whether they accept God’s guidance.
They say it was because their landing in the wilds of Siberia may require defense against wildlife. This is not true. The truth is that they have seen what resides in space, and would not venture into it’s laid unarmed.
Saw this yesterday, felt that it was an ok film overall but was let down by the first half where they tried to cover a lot of different events. After the GT academy is over I felt the movie improved a fair bit. I was surprised at how many of the events in the film were accurate to real life events! I thought the film was exaggerating Jann’s life but seemingly not which I appreciated.
I can’t seem to read the article, so forgive me if they answer this question, but how would a gun work in space? Most firearms I’m familiar with use oxidation reactions to propel ammunition. Were the shells filled with self-oxidizing propellant, or did they just use a completely different system?
I guess today is a learning day for all of us! I knew gunpowder contained nitrates, but I didn’t realize that was its purpose, or that it allowed it to work in a vacuum.
Pretty much anything explosive need to be self oxidizing. If air can’t get in to continue to feed the burning of the material (which never can during an explosion) than the oxygen needs to come from another source.
Firearms generally work in space at least once.
A semi-auto probably won’t cycle correctly in zero G, and any gun will likely overheat from the first couple shots in a vacuum, but you can always get one shot out.
allegedly was intended as a defensive weapon against in-space attacks by the US space program.
??? If it was for in-space attacks, wouldn’t it be more logical to mount a gun outside of ship 😆?
It was intended as a survival aid for emergency landings. It’s not a shotgun, but a three barrel pistol (but it can shoot both normal rounds and shells). Another interesting detail - it’s buttstock is a folding machete.
TP-87 was invented by request of A. Leonov after emergency landing of ‘Voshod-2’ where cosmonauts Leonov and Belyaev had to survive 3 days in wild taiga forest for a rescue team to retrieve them.
en.wikipedia.org
Hot