Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00067)

Reading the discussion of "oblong squares," I decided to give
the dictionary a look. It's been a while since I've had a
change to add a few comments to the discussion ...

I consulted the 1999 cd-rom edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 
which shows word usage, and looked up "oblong." It reads, in part:

 > Elongated in one direction (usually as a deviation from an exact
 > square or circular form); having the chief axis considerably
 > longer than the transverse diameter; spec.  in Geom., Rectangular
 > with the adjacent sides unequal.  Examples: oblong marrow, the
 > medulla oblongata (obs.).  oblong spheroid, a prolate spheroid.
 > 
 > 1834 M.  Somerville Connex.  Phys.  Sc.  xiii.  (1849)
 > 104 The waters thus attracted by the moon would assume the form
 > of an oblong spheroid. 1853 Kane Grinnell Exp.  iii.  (1856) 27 It
 > was in shape an oblong cube.
 > 
 > 3.  Comb.  (Bot.) in definitions of form, implying an oblong
 > modification of another shape; as oblong-acuminate, -cordate,
 > -elliptic, -hastate, -ovate, -wedgeshaped, etc., adjs.; also
 > oblong-leaved adj.
 > 
 > B.  n.  An oblong figure, or something having an oblong form;
 > spec.  in Geom., A rectangle of greater length than breadth. 

 From reading it, I see than "oblong" refers to an object, such as 
a square, circle, cube, sphere, etc. which has one axis 
considerably longer than another, typically the "length" being 
longer than the "breadth". Since "oblong" could refer to one of 
many different types of objects, it's necessary to further qualify 
the term. In one case, we might have an "oblong square." In 
another case, it might be an "oblong circle."

If the phrase "oblong square" were read as "a square of oblong 
shape," it'd sound confusing, since if something were perfectly 
square, it couldn't also be oblong. But if it were instead read as 
"an oblong object, based upon a elongated square shape," as the 
dictionary seems to apply, it makes sense.

The English language changes over time, so a word or phrase that
may now seem awkward might have seemed ok in Blavatsky's day.
If we want to read books like THE SECRET DOCTRINE and be clear
on what's being said, we might want to know what the words meant
at the time the books were written.

That's my first point: the importance of knowing what words
meant at the time a book was written. The second is that if
a book is being republished for current readers, there may be
an argument for a judicious editing of the materials, if it's
clear that it's being done. This wouldn't be of anything that
was deeply esoteric and readily subject to misunderstanding; it
would instead be of simple words that have fallen into disuse.
Perhaps, for example, "milliard" might become "billion."

Another possible change that I've found greatly helpful in
Boris de Zirkoff's edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE is how the
quoted materials have been checked and errors in the citations
corrected. I've found it interesting over the past couple of
years to hear, in the Malibu ULT class on THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
someone read quotations, and see how they differ from the
verified and corrected quotes in Boris' edition, which I'm
using for my studies.

Sometimes quotes have mistakenly run into the body
text, where their ending points are not indicated. But the
biggest advantage I've found is that Blavatsky's writings stand
out as distinct from the quoted sources, making it easier to
know when I'm reading one or the other. This is the second
point: that there are valid uses for revised editions, as long
as the original editions also remain in print and the revisions
are typographic, for adding clarity, and not an attempt to
paraphrase or embellish on the original ideas.

-- Eldon 


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.