On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Ed Heil wrote:

> Patrick Dunn wrote:
>
> > cod da secundo cajstjo: cod es a essem da caos prim?  a essem de caos es a
> > res et-cod nos nimov cando nifac et majic.  otid a stulti jinominujid
> > <<impeto>>; sed a sapjenes jijadavjid.
>
> Ooh, this is interesting.  It brings up the fact that a Renaissance
> mage would naturally use Aristotelian physics, not Newtonian.  So
> there would be no precise counterpart in his world to "energy" in the
> world of physics.  "Impetus" would be the closest thing, but "impetus"
> would I think connote something like "oomph" -- a tendency to move
> which is imparted to a moving object *BY A MOVER* and which is slowly
> exhausted by that very movement.  Remember, in this world, it is not
> true that "objects in motion naturally stay in motion" unless they are
> acted on by an unopposed force.  Objects in motion stay in motion only
> so long as they are acted on by a mover, or until their "impetus" runs
> out.  After that, they naturally come to rest.

Yup.  Keep in mind that although the *language* has its roots in the 17th
century or so, this particular piece is written recently -- probably in
the last twenty years or so, to coincide with the arrising of chaos magic.


> I'm not sure how well this would square with the concept of "magical
> energy" that the author of the passage is criticizing.

Probably not well at all.  But instead of coining the word "enerja" (which
occurred to me), I borrowed one from Latin.

> I also wonder about the translation of "copiae" as "forces;" I
> suspect that that would only mean "military forces" and that the
> closest thing to a concept of physical force might be "impetus."

I was aware of the meaning of "military forces" -- I chose it for that
connotation, which in agsem is less strong than in Latin, but still
present.  Imagine a plain of soldiers, all of them fighting a random
soldier -- nothing can be done.