Celtic Contemplation Cube
Aug. 2nd, 2004 01:20 pmYesterday at Lughnassadh I took an oath to finish naming, carving, and decorating the club I found/made for calling on Dagda Mor at Samhain last fall. The unspoken part of that oath was that I need to work on my woodworking skill in order to accomplish this task in a manner befitting him. I also have taken to putting something on my desk at work for each of the Fire Festivals, until we get to the next one. My maypole will have to come down soon, but I haven't figured out yet what will replace it.
So today on the drive in to work, I get hit with an idea for a wooden cube with the names of important deities carved into the edges, in ogham. Each face could represent a particular concept, and spinning the cube to that face for the day would give me deities that I might choose to work with in regards to that concept. So I started sketching out the edges, and this is what I ended up with:
The faces seem to have come into a coherent pattern at this point, thanks to
featherynscale:
I think I've got twelve Celtic deities I like having there now, but the problem comes in the layout. Ogham is written bottom-to-top, left-to-right. Ordinarily this means up, across, down, or occasionally up, across, up again. Dealing with a three-dimensional space isn't really accounted for. If you try to lay them all out left-to-right, you end up with two opposite faces 'clockwise', two opposite faces 'counterclockwise', and two faces with two 'angles' emanating from one corner and meeting on the opposite corner. Bollocks!
So a second idea is to put them all B->T and L->R respective to their own face (this ends up looking like the double-angle figure I got earlier). Starting arbitrarily one one side, I end up with six sides that all have a 'meeting' point in the top right corner:
This seems to work out much better, plus it has the added benefit that the faces are lined up with respect to themselves and their nearest neighbors, not along an arbitrary main axis. It will probably mean I have to rework what face goes next to what, and stop thinking so linearly.
The last problem (besides the spelling of names) seems to be the 'feathering' of the ogham to show what direction it goes. On a regular rod, you can cut the >-- into the beginning of the edge and it doesn't interfere with anything. In three dimensions, that's frequently the end of another edge (on 11 out of 12 corners, in fact)! So I'll have to mull over the way to indicate this without cocking up the rest of the cube's grace.
So today on the drive in to work, I get hit with an idea for a wooden cube with the names of important deities carved into the edges, in ogham. Each face could represent a particular concept, and spinning the cube to that face for the day would give me deities that I might choose to work with in regards to that concept. So I started sketching out the edges, and this is what I ended up with:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The faces seem to have come into a coherent pattern at this point, thanks to
- Female deities
- Steadfastness, or Loyalty, or something similar
- Oldest deities
- Deities for when you're "out of your mind"?
- Male deities
- Creative/crafty deities
I think I've got twelve Celtic deities I like having there now, but the problem comes in the layout. Ogham is written bottom-to-top, left-to-right. Ordinarily this means up, across, down, or occasionally up, across, up again. Dealing with a three-dimensional space isn't really accounted for. If you try to lay them all out left-to-right, you end up with two opposite faces 'clockwise', two opposite faces 'counterclockwise', and two faces with two 'angles' emanating from one corner and meeting on the opposite corner. Bollocks!
So a second idea is to put them all B->T and L->R respective to their own face (this ends up looking like the double-angle figure I got earlier). Starting arbitrarily one one side, I end up with six sides that all have a 'meeting' point in the top right corner:
| >---------> | |||
| ^ | | | | | | ^ |
x | ^ | | | | | | ^ |
|
| >---------> |
This seems to work out much better, plus it has the added benefit that the faces are lined up with respect to themselves and their nearest neighbors, not along an arbitrary main axis. It will probably mean I have to rework what face goes next to what, and stop thinking so linearly.
The last problem (besides the spelling of names) seems to be the 'feathering' of the ogham to show what direction it goes. On a regular rod, you can cut the >-- into the beginning of the edge and it doesn't interfere with anything. In three dimensions, that's frequently the end of another edge (on 11 out of 12 corners, in fact)! So I'll have to mull over the way to indicate this without cocking up the rest of the cube's grace.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 12:01 am (UTC)Celtic languages are weird in that the forms of words change based on the forms of the words around them. This is one of those cases.
I'm not sure, but I think Maeve might also be better spelled Medb.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 12:46 am (UTC)Interesting Idea
Date: 2004-08-03 01:04 am (UTC)It's an interestesing combination of divinatory methods. I wonder -- how do you want the tool to serve you? Is it about deities to keep in mind, correspondences and associations or something else? Would you be "spinning" in response to a question, or simply looking for your theme of the day?
Depending on how you reason this through, six sides may not be enough. Or, one die may not be enough.
An excellent ambition, no matter what. I can't wait to see the prototype and test it in action.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 01:06 am (UTC)Re: Interesting Idea
Date: 2004-08-03 02:24 am (UTC)I got a couple of cubes to try it on, and
BRAT-tacular!
Date: 2004-08-03 03:57 am (UTC)12 linear vertices, which may not help me much since I can't think of a good way to write their names along an angle. Ogham, sure, it's made for it. Greek, not so much.
Plus there's the problem of having thirteen deities in the "Twelve Olympians"
six of one, a dozen of the other...
Date: 2004-08-03 05:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 01:27 pm (UTC)http://baharna.com/celtic/
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 02:49 pm (UTC)Please remember, you are talking about a language that has at least 5 different ways to spell a silent consonant. Every consonant has at least three different ways to pronounce it and (if I'm remembering it correctly) 4 different ways to pronounce vowels. And they had to figure out how to do this with only 20 letters in their alphabet. Putting down the difficulties of making this readable by someone on the other side of their country (and sometimes across an ocean) by claiming it was political is somewhat demeaning and dismissive of the work of a lot of people over time.
Re: BRAT-tacular!
Date: 2004-08-03 03:46 pm (UTC)And then there's always the possibilities inherant in a dodekahedron.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 07:33 pm (UTC)So there were no regional variations in dialect? I think it highly naive to assume politics held no sway. Those who have power and money get to decide what books get written. If the books were written in a certain region they would likely hold to that dialect. Why is it automatically demeaning and dismissive to have politics involved in something? Politics is deeply involved in language as in everything else. Our disdain for the process of governance and it's reach into our lives does not give us leave to dismiss it. And language is not some shining beacon of virtue.
You yourself say it has evolved, which is my point. There will be variations in spelling and pronunciations that will rise or fall for a variety of reasons (and some of them will be political reasons). Given that how do you chose the "proper" form of a particular word? Why is this one better than that one? I know the French have a government ministry that decides what is proper French. Is this the case for Gaelic or was the proper form decided in a vote or town meeting?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 08:53 pm (UTC)However, we are not speaking about modern Irish spelling when we talk about the names of the gods. Those were written down in various places around the country for hundreds of years and the base forms, and the patterns of lenition, etc., are rather consistent. Since this is consistent across the boundaries of kingdoms within Ireland, I don't see where you can claim any political pressure would have set the spelling for these names.
Does this satisfy you, or do you want to keep pounding away on your drum about political forces making changes? If you do, feel free, for I will no longer try to involve myself in your political fixation.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 10:02 pm (UTC)There is no evidence that this gods name has ever been spelled any other way. The variations in spelling are all because the way a word in Irish (and, as far as I know, all other Celtic languages) is pronounced changed radically based on the words on either side of it. The base word has not changed, just the way it is said, and thus spelled. You can have two consecutive sentences in Irish that use the same word and they will be spelled and said differently, depending on how the words around it are said and spelled. This is not a change over a long period of time, this is a change in seconds. For example, the name "Bob" can be pronounced either "bob" or "wob" depending on whether there's a hard consonant or a soft consonant or a soft vowel or a hard vowel right before it. And the "wob" pronunciation is spelled "bhob." There are only 20 characters native to the Celtic written language, but they are used to describe some 50-60 letter sounds. The spelling shifts to account for all those changes.
The problem I was having was you were trying to ascribe to politics what was be done because that's how the language works in conversation.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 01:12 pm (UTC)If so, it makes sense that Ogma would be the base form. H's seem to be the most common form of lenition in modern Gaelic languages but I am unclear if that was always the case. Do you have a resource you consider trustworthy on the matter, as it applies to deities/heroes?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-06 01:47 am (UTC)