But hostility? Where on earth do you feel that? Not coming from me, a tilter at linguistic windmills for sometime now.
Sorry if I misread your post, your use of the word "nonsensical" had sounded a bit aggressive to me.
Adi wrote:Yup, that's where it started. Then it became a monotheistic descriptor when it became an English word.
Nope, I'm afraid I can't agree with that. If the word "theos" as a loanword in English and other European languages had the meaning of referring to a monotheistic God then the word "polytheism" which contains this very expression would be a completely nonsensical contradiction in terms
Adi wrote:Of course the definition has change again and our English dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive, but it's still not the right term as you agree.
Yes, no, well, uarrghhh, emmm.... Strictly speaking from an etymological point of view maybe, but I wouldn't go so far to say it's the wrong
term because in the community of social scientists this is how the word is being used. So, according to the rules of the scientific community it's correct to speak like that. I'd be willing to compromise on this one.
Btw I've just read a dictionary entry about "theos" in Pape's dictionary of ancient Greek/German and he writes that in Homer's work the word "theos" can also have a non-personal meaning, denoting a higher power and not one ore more personal gods. But that's just a linguistic sidenote.