Neal Litherland |
We all know what the mechanical differences are between the two most common arcane classes... but did you know there are historical differences as well? All you need to do is look at the history of the word sorcerer (link below) to see that it might be one of the oldest words we have today to discuss spellcasters.
Also it was a uniquely feminine word for ages.
Some Other Guy |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all know what the mechanical differences are between the two most common arcane classes... but did you know there are historical differences as well? All you need to do is look at the history of the word sorcerer (link below) to see that it might be one of the oldest words we have today to discuss spellcasters.
Also it was a uniquely feminine word for ages.
Not to burst your bubble, but looking at the difference between two things requires information about both things, not just one.
Neal Litherland |
This is true, Some Other Guy.
So, in the interest of answering that objection, the etymology of the word wizard can be found right here.
As you can see the word wizard comes from the 15th century, and it uses the base word "wys" from Middle English. The association was with philosophy and knowledge, which is why wizards tend to be old men with gray or white beards. The line between knowledge and magical power got sort of fine during the Middle Ages, so it was assumed that those with wisdom knew both natural and unnatural sciences.
Neal Litherland |
In most modern fantasy literature, both words are frequently used for the same character. Sorcerer is more commonly used as an epithet.
LazarX, the post has nothing to do with fiction. In this case it's about the actual history of the words and the languages that birthed them. I agree with your observation that the words are often used interchangeably in novels, films, etc., but it's not an observation that really gels with what's being discussed.
GypsyMischief |
We're not discussing the existence of magic, captain condescending. We're discussing the historical parallel to our current notion of scholars that study the supernatural and unexplainable. Men and women that claim to wield powers beyond natural physical law exist, we call these people many things, two of the words used are Wizard and Sorcerer. Whether these claims are at all credible is another discussion that you are welcome to have with other people.
thegreenteagamer |
You can't prove a negative.It is a "severe improbability" that magic exists, perhaps, but "it is a fact that it doesn't" isn't something you can really say.
Forgive me if I'm mixing you up with someone else, but haven't you made disparaging remarks as to the existence of a deity on morality threads? If it was you I'm thinking of, this statement seems contradictory.
If I am wrong, my apologies again.
Rynjin |
I've made disparaging remarks against people taking a moral high ground simply because of their religion, and marginalizing other people's beliefs.
I mostly take offense to anyone claiming that "it is a fact" about any aspect of an inherently not provable thing. Especially in a condescending manner.
Though it wouldn't necessarily be a contradiction if I had. It may be technically possible to win the lottery, but scoffing at people who fervently believe they'll win is still just fine.
Neal Litherland |
You can't have 'historical' differences for things that never existed. This is as silly as 'Santa Claus must be white'.
Whether or not sorcerers and wizards had real powers is irrelevant; the language we use to describe them IS historical fact. The cultures that shaped these ideas gave us the words we have today. Just because the words describe people who may have had no real powers at all doesn't mean the words themselves and how they've changed aren't fact.