Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
illuminol

'matter' from the latin word for mother?

51 posts in this topic

Most Etymologists agree that the word 'matter' is a derivitive of the latin word 'mater' meaning mother. How did this happen? and how does this relate to the word 'pattern' which is derived from the latin word for father? Deliberate or meaningful co-incidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Etymologists agree that the word 'matter' is a derivitive of the latin word 'mater' meaning mother. How did this happen? and how does this relate to the word 'pattern' which is derived from the latin word for father? Deliberate or meaningful co-incidence?

I've been thinking about the significance of this for a while too. In sanskrit it is mata. Now you can't get much closer than that and as I understand it is a pretty old language.

Father for me rings of P'tah, the original egyptian god. I hadn't thought of pattern but saw the word it particle.

When looking for these links online there is a problem in that what is written is always very convincing because they don't give the other side of the argument. However, I think there are significant coincidences linking disparate cultures together. Then again I am not a linguistical expert so conclude that I may be seeing what I want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Etymologists agree that the word 'matter' is a derivitive of the latin word 'mater' meaning mother. How did this happen? and how does this relate to the word 'pattern' which is derived from the latin word for father? Deliberate or meaningful co-incidence?

No they don't, this was pointed out in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't, this was pointed out in another thread.

Listen matt, you haven't done any research and you aren't interested in this subject. You just want to argue. It wasn't 'pointed out' in another thread, it was deemed 'bafflegap' and backed up by 'logitalk'. I left that thread because i was attacked with a barrage of insults and so started this one as a topic. This is a thread for people who are interested in exploring the symbolic connection of the word 'matter' which is derived from the word 'materia' which in turn is derived from the word 'mater' latin for mother. As you can see, slimjim also has an interest in metaphysical symbolism. I don't want a repeat of what happened on the other thread so just leave it at. No offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen matt, you haven't done any research and you aren't interested in this subject. You just want to argue. It wasn't 'pointed out' in another thread, it was deemed 'bafflegap' and backed up by 'logitalk'. I left that thread because i was attacked with a barrage of insults and so started this one as a topic. This is a thread for people who are interested in exploring the symbolic connection of the word 'matter' which is derived from the word 'materia' which in turn is derived from the word 'mater' latin for mother. As you can see, slimjim also has an interest in metaphysical symbolism. I don't want a repeat of what happened on the other thread so just leave it at. No offense.

No, you are starting with a false premise, you are claiming that what you want to accept is accepted and it most certainly is not, nor is it the prevalent view point. You are deliberately misinforming to promote your own view and that instantly scuppers your own arguments. If you want to believe it is of that origin fine, but don't pretend it is accepted academically when it is not.

You may not want to address the etymology that is more favoured, but if you don't it leaves your thread rather legless.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the significance of this for a while too. In sanskrit it is mata. Now you can't get much closer than that and as I understand it is a pretty old language.

Father for me rings of P'tah, the original egyptian god. I hadn't thought of pattern but saw the word it particle.

When looking for these links online there is a problem in that what is written is always very convincing because they don't give the other side of the argument. However, I think there are significant coincidences linking disparate cultures together. Then again I am not a linguistical expert so conclude that I may be seeing what I want to see.

Maybe this a new area of investigation!? I actually like that there is not much information online because I'm one to encourage myself and others to use their own intuition when it comes to a subject like this.

I've been thinking about this for some time and i had to ask, how did the word we use for what everything is made of come to be rooted in a word that meant mother? is it deliberate? who chose it if anyone? and the metaphysical symbolism is wonderful!

I had no idea that it was so close in structure to the sanscrit word! How did it come about!

I've been toying with the idea of matter as symbolic of the feminine nature of substance and of the masculine nature of the molecular 'patterns' that give form to matter.

Edited by illuminol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are starting with a false premise, you are claiming that what you want to accept is accepted and it most certainly is not, nor is it the prevalent view point. You are deliberately misinforming to promote your own view and that instantly scuppers your own arguments. If you want to believe it is of that origin fine, but don't pretend it is accepted academically when it is not.

You may not want to address the etymology that is more favoured, but if you don't it leaves your thread rather legless.

How is it false. no logitalk please. just show me your evidence. because EVERY etymological reference connects it to the root word 'mater'. what is the prevalent viewpoint. show it to me. show me how the root word is not mater. show me there is no connection either etymologically or symbolically. The underlying principal of this discussion is metaphysical, and metaphysical discussion requires an experimental mind.

Edited by illuminol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the significance of this for a while too. In sanskrit it is mata. Now you can't get much closer than that and as I understand it is a pretty old language.

Father for me rings of P'tah, the original egyptian god. I hadn't thought of pattern but saw the word it particle.

It seems resonant of the 'all is one' concept. Which was first established in ancient indian philosophy?, perhaps it came from the sanscrit 'mata' first!

Edited by illuminol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems resonant of the 'all is one' concept. Which was first established in ancient indian philosophy?, perhaps it came from the sanscrit 'mata' first!

It seems quite likely. How about Adam and atom and also Aton? It might be stretching it a bit... Heliopolis was called ON similar to one and lots of words sound a bit like Jon like aeon and ion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it false. no logitalk please. just show me your evidence. because EVERY etymological reference connects it to the root word 'mater'. what is the prevalent viewpoint. show it to me. show me how the root word is not mater. show me there is no connection either etymologically or symbolically. The underlying principal of this discussion is metaphysical, and metaphysical discussion requires an experimental mind.

I did in the previous thread, I linked you to an etymology dictionary.

No science requires an experimental mind, metaphysics requires nothing but imagination.

You are asking me to prove a negative and that is not possible.

You are however correct about pattern, though its common use derived from its original use in knitting.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems quite likely. How about Adam and atom and also Aton? It might be stretching it a bit... Heliopolis was called ON similar to one and lots of words sound a bit like Jon like aeon and ion.

That is from the Greek Atomus mate, meaning uncut. It came at a time when it was thought the atom was the smallest unit.

John is traditionally spelt John, Jon is generally used as a shortening of Jonathan.

Ion is actually Greek, means to go and was first used as its current meaning by Faraday.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did in the previous thread, I linked you to an etymology dictionary.

No science requires an experimental mind, metaphysics requires nothing but imagination.

You are asking me to prove a negative and that is not possible.

You are however correct about pattern, though its common use derived from its original use in knitting.

yes, and as i said, i looked at the link, and its just one paragraph. here is another more concise dictionary...it includes your link and lists another version of the words origin thus the confusion... 'derivative of mater'. so unless you can show something that says it isn't, i'm going with my instincts and all the other listings that note the root word being 'mater'...and take the 'perhaps' as a positive

the full page version with the origin section

Edited by illuminol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many links, here are four, i will post more. don't know where to start.

root words

more on the root word 'mater'

My link

My link

I haven't scratched the surface. the root word for matter, is mother. Now how did it come about that the latin word for 'mother' became the root word for 'matter' How did this meaningful connection occur? what are the metaphysical implications? It seems to have happened around the thirteenth century. I am searching for information on the sanscrit 'mata' right now...seems to be from the 4th century.

Edited by illuminol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right fine, "matter" and "mother" have similar roots. Many many many words have similar roots, and etymology isn't as simply as just saying "this word comes straight from that, therefore they are directly related".

Whats your point?

Edited by Emma_Acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right fine, "matter" and "mother" have similar roots. Many many many words have similar roots, and etymology isn't as simply as just saying "this word comes straight from that, therefore they are directly related".

Whats your point?

That's right! many many words have the same root source, but the word i'm interested in, in this case is 'matter' because its everything around us, and it's what we're made of.

There's an intelligence there, like a hidden secret that matter is 'mother' of everything.

And to add to the fun connection, it depends on how matter is arranged - the pattern of matter, through which diverse forms evolve. Pattern is from the latin for father, so there's a syncronicity happening that symbolically reflects many many myths and also appears to be in harmony with laws of nature, of physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right! many many words have the same root source, but the word i'm interested in, in this case is 'matter' because its everything around us, and it's what we're made of.

There's an intelligence there, like a hidden secret that matter is 'mother' of everything.

And to add to the fun connection, it depends on how matter is arranged - the pattern of matter, through which diverse forms evolve. Pattern is from the latin for father, so there's a syncronicity happening that symbolically reflects many many myths and also appears to be in harmony with laws of nature, of physics.

That is a weak argument. The whole premise of your suggestion is that you like the idea yet you choose to deliberately ignore the parts the don't fit.

Also, only works in one language.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right! many many words have the same root source, but the word i'm interested in, in this case is 'matter' because its everything around us, and it's what we're made of.

There's an intelligence there, like a hidden secret that matter is 'mother' of everything.

And to add to the fun connection, it depends on how matter is arranged - the pattern of matter, through which diverse forms evolve. Pattern is from the latin for father, so there's a syncronicity happening that symbolically reflects many many myths and also appears to be in harmony with laws of nature, of physics.

Its all a bit pointless, much like most of these "pick n link" pseudo-science hypotheses. You can link any word with any other word and form a wonky semantic link between them, while simultaneously ignoring every other meaning.

Mother comes from the Proto-Indo-European "ma" which means "breast".

It was only linked to the "matter" (as in everything around us) much later. For example, "Madeira" is Portuguese for "wood". These makes much more sense as a root of the word "matter". You can post-rationalise it and say that both "mothers" and "trees" are the "origins" of things, but I think this is a step too far - and that's before we've even linked it to "father" yet.

"Pattern" comes from "patron" - simply meaning a socially upstanding individual who's behaviour should be repeated or imitated - literally a "model".

So then linking "matter" (from the very ancient word "ma") to "pattern" (from the 1500s) and thinking its describing some hidden code about the universe (but only in English) is quite beyond a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Etymologists agree that the word 'matter' is a derivitive of the latin word 'mater' meaning mother. How did this happen? and how does this relate to the word 'pattern' which is derived from the latin word for father? Deliberate or meaningful co-incidence?

Well, matter is derived from the Latin materia, which in turn is derived from mater, so you'd have to state that matter is a second derivative of mater to be truly accurate. This does have consequences for reading meanings into words and why they are derived from others.

Similarly, pattern is a second derivation of pater, with it's first derivator (?) being patron.

As for any hidden meaning in this, it is unlikely. Such words are derived based on a perceived association in their own context, not the absolute meaning of the word they are derived from. By example, I would say that matter is derived by being considered the origin of 'stuff' - just as mater is the origin of other 'stuff' (us). So, the contextual association is 'origin', not 'mother'.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, matter is derived from the Latin materia, which in turn is derived from mater, so you'd have to state that matter is a second derivative of mater to be truly accurate. This does have consequences for reading meanings into words and why they are derived from others.

Similarly, pattern is a second derivation of pater, with it's first derivator (?) being patron.

As for any hidden meaning in this, it is unlikely. Such words are derived based on a perceived association in their own context, not the absolute meaning of the word they are derived from. By example, I would say that matter is derived by being considered the origin of 'stuff' - just as mater is the origin of other 'stuff' (us). So, the contextual association is 'origin', not 'mother'.

I get what you mean, and that's the first intelligent answer i've heard..(besides the interesting sanscrit reference that slimjim mentioned about 'mata')

I know it's a second derivative, i'm interested in why it surfaced from the root word.

Love to use my imagination and have not much interest in the scientific validity of this particular idea. Because that's all it is, an idea that i enjoy discussing rather than arguing over. I was unable to get anything but insults at another thread so started this one to see what happened. I think that's absolutely correct! the contextual association is 'origin'. The hidden meanings are personal and symbolic fo me. I'm an abstract expressionist painter and i spend alot of time allowing myself to make connections where i see them, and often where there aren't any to other people. :rolleyes: when you say

"such words are derived based on a percieved association in their own context" percieved by who? How do these words appear in the language and who chose them? Sounds like a natural association though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all a bit pointless, much like most of these "pick n link" pseudo-science hypotheses. You can link any word with any other word and form a wonky semantic link between them, while simultaneously ignoring every other meaning.

Mother comes from the Proto-Indo-European "ma" which means "breast".

It was only linked to the "matter" (as in everything around us) much later. For example, "Madeira" is Portuguese for "wood". These makes much more sense as a root of the word "matter". You can post-rationalise it and say that both "mothers" and "trees" are the "origins" of things, but I think this is a step too far - and that's before we've even linked it to "father" yet.

"Pattern" comes from "patron" - simply meaning a socially upstanding individual who's behaviour should be repeated or imitated - literally a "model".

So then linking "matter" (from the very ancient word "ma") to "pattern" (from the 1500s) and thinking its describing some hidden code about the universe (but only in English) is quite beyond a stretch.

...and mata - mother in sanscrit.

I am speaking philosophically gumnut. hidden codes are personal - some people share 'em, others don't.

predictable.

That is a weak argument. The whole premise of your suggestion is that you like the idea yet you choose to deliberately ignore the parts the don't fit.

Also, only works in one language.

you again. give up. why don't you keep telling me that the root word for matter isn't mater? are you over that one.

Edited by illuminol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking philosophically gumnut.

predictable.

you again.

Well it is nice to see what a well reason and intelligent response you can come up with. I mean how dare people hold a different view to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is nice to see what a well reason and intelligent response you can come up with. I mean how dare people hold a different view to you!

I must admit Im finding the arguing more interesting than the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is nice to see what a well reason and intelligent response you can come up with. I mean how dare people hold a different view to you!

I'm a fast learner and a pretty accurate mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit Im finding the arguing more interesting than the topic.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit Im finding the arguing more interesting than the topic.

lol. yeah i know it must be boring, i had to go online to find a discussion about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.