"Consider that “water” could have been called aqua, or Wasser, or agua, or vatten, etc. and though the outer word is different in each case, the soul of the word, the inner word, the concept, the idea, the essence, the meaning, the thought, the spirit, or whatever one wishes to call it remains the same."
"Consider that “water” could have been called aqua, or Wasser, or agua, or vatten, etc. and though the outer word is different in each case, the soul of the word, the inner word, the concept, the idea, the essence, the meaning, the thought, the spirit, or whatever one wishes to call it remains the same."
If it is so, how to understand the following?
"Let us take an example from the German language. In German something is described that rests quietly on our body, is round and has eyes and nose in front. It is called in German Kopf, in Italian testa. We take a dictionary and find that the translation of Kopf is testa. But that is purely external and superficial. It is not even true. The following is true. Out of a feeling for the vowels and consonants contained in the word Kopf, for instance, I experience the o quite definitely as a form which I could draw: it is, as eurythmists know, the rounded form which in front is developed into nose and mouth. We find in this combination of sounds, if we will only let ourselves experience it, everything that is given in the form of the head. So, if we wish to express this form, we make use of larynx and lungs and pronounce the sounds approximating to K-o-pf. But now we can say: In the head there is something which enables one person to speak to another. There is a means of communication. We can impart to another person the content of something which we wish to make known—a will or testament for instance.—If you want to describe the head, not in relation to its round form, but as that which imparts information, which defines clearly what one wishes to communicate, then language out of its own nature gives you the means of doing so. Then you say testa. You give a name to that which imparts something when you say testa; you give a name to the rounded form when you say Kopf. If the Italian wanted to describe roundness, he too would say Kopf; and likewise, if the German wanted to express communication, he would say testa. But both the Italian and the German have become accustomed to expressing in language something different, for it is not possible to express totally different things in a single word. Therefore we do not say exactly the same thing when we speak the word testa or Kopf. The languages are different because their words express different things."
However, the concept of kopf is not the same as the one of testa, according to Steiner, and so the concept of Wasser is not the same as the one of acqua. They sound radically different, and sound is not irrelevant, sound is gesture, and gesture is the only salvation from "the mind merely weaving in the shadow-pictures of words", as Steiner calls it. We need full fluidity of concepts.
"Consider that “water” could have been called aqua, or Wasser, or agua, or vatten, etc. and though the outer word is different in each case, the soul of the word, the inner word, the concept, the idea, the essence, the meaning, the thought, the spirit, or whatever one wishes to call it remains the same."
If it is so, how to understand the following?
"Let us take an example from the German language. In German something is described that rests quietly on our body, is round and has eyes and nose in front. It is called in German Kopf, in Italian testa. We take a dictionary and find that the translation of Kopf is testa. But that is purely external and superficial. It is not even true. The following is true. Out of a feeling for the vowels and consonants contained in the word Kopf, for instance, I experience the o quite definitely as a form which I could draw: it is, as eurythmists know, the rounded form which in front is developed into nose and mouth. We find in this combination of sounds, if we will only let ourselves experience it, everything that is given in the form of the head. So, if we wish to express this form, we make use of larynx and lungs and pronounce the sounds approximating to K-o-pf. But now we can say: In the head there is something which enables one person to speak to another. There is a means of communication. We can impart to another person the content of something which we wish to make known—a will or testament for instance.—If you want to describe the head, not in relation to its round form, but as that which imparts information, which defines clearly what one wishes to communicate, then language out of its own nature gives you the means of doing so. Then you say testa. You give a name to that which imparts something when you say testa; you give a name to the rounded form when you say Kopf. If the Italian wanted to describe roundness, he too would say Kopf; and likewise, if the German wanted to express communication, he would say testa. But both the Italian and the German have become accustomed to expressing in language something different, for it is not possible to express totally different things in a single word. Therefore we do not say exactly the same thing when we speak the word testa or Kopf. The languages are different because their words express different things."
GA 310 - VIII
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA310/English/RSP1971/19240724a01.html
I don’t know, what do you think? They’re both true.
However, the concept of kopf is not the same as the one of testa, according to Steiner, and so the concept of Wasser is not the same as the one of acqua. They sound radically different, and sound is not irrelevant, sound is gesture, and gesture is the only salvation from "the mind merely weaving in the shadow-pictures of words", as Steiner calls it. We need full fluidity of concepts.
I need some more time before I can answer, thank you.