Talk:Zodiac

Lead

@Jc3s5h: you wrote The zodiac is the belt, not the 12 signs. Also, signs never were constellations, although the disparity is greater today than it was a few thousand years ago.

I have been reading Ptolemy’s Almagest, from where the term first came into modern usage. The zodiac was all of the signs, the constellations, and the belt. The name zodiac came from the signs, and the signs came from the constellations which were observed along the belt. So the root of what “zodiac” is is the constellations along the ecliptic belt (which already has its own article at Ecliptic).

You have edited here before and I have not. Could you help me understand what you are getting at? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The ecliptic passes through 13 constellations, including Ophiuchus. There is nothing new about Ophiuchus; if the Wikipedia article is to be believed, it was known to Ptolemy. Another discrepancy between signs and constellations is that each sign covers 30° of celestial longitude while the constellations vary considerably in the number of degrees of celestial longitude they cover. Just because the names of the signs came from the constellations doesn't mean the zodiac is the region covered by the 12 constellations whose names were adapted. An article may be found at https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2010JRASC.104..103T Jc3s5h (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: thank you for sharing what was a very enjoyable article. I am doing some more reading and thinking about this, and will come back later.

In the meantime, can I ask whether you consider this article to be about astronomy or astrology or about both? I had assumed astronomy only, as we already have an astrologically-focused article at Astrological sign. Although of course it is difficult to fully dissociate the two, as the article you shared so humorously explains.

And one other related question - if the term today has come to refer to the belt 8 degrees either side of the ecliptic path, who first defined it as such? It must have been a modern or early modern astronomer who proposed repurposing the word as such, and would be helpful to figure out who.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the article, of necessity, when discussing the history of the zodiac, covers both the astronomical and astrological aspects. I notice that when discussing the current status of the zodiac, there is minimal mention of astrology. Since there numerous other articles about astrology, I see no need to introduce that material into this article.

As for shifts in the meaning of the word, I find the Oxford English Dictionary the most helpful source, at least for English. But I don't have access to it. Perhaps there is a reader in the UK who could look it up, since free online access to the OED is available to people living in the UK. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Greek transliteration

It's been a good many years since I studied classical Greek, but I question the transliteration of ζῳδιακός, ζῴδιον and ζῷον as, respectively, "zōidiakòs", "zōidion" and "zōion". It seems to me that these should be "zōdiakòs", "zōdion" and "zōon". Why is there an "i" after the transliterated omega in each of these words? CodeTalker (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As there have been no responses, I have changed the transliterations to what I believe is correct. CodeTalker (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont get that 2601:285:0:1360:9CAF:38E7:C4C6:68CA (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I'm considering a merge. Specifically of Zodiac and Western astrology. As well as Astrology and History of astrology. It's being discussed on the Astrology Talk page here.

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sunflowerdandelions.

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Name

The greek word for "animals" cited here, means a living being, and thus includes humans and animals. The explanation given in the article should be removed because it is false. 176.201.192.137 (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)