@Cosmopolitan? @YourTango taught us ... Your #ZodiacSign (or #HoroscopeSign) has Little-to-do-with That #Constellation
A little suspicious that horoscopes might've changed over the millennia since people started writing them, I got snared by a COSMOPOLITAN-article that confirmed my suspicions.
Their 'worry' is dispelled by the article that's linked through 'the main word' below; but I feel it's more important to understand that word better. And I find that you understand words better when you look at the other words at the bases of the words you're thinking-of ...
The word “Constellation” is built on ancient words that mean (I'll guess before I look it up ... 'With the Stars (Con- + |Stellar)?) ... yes! except the word's not "|Stellar" so much as it's a word that means "to Shine" (a word which resembles- and so is probably where-we-get '|Stellar')---and it might also be "Stars Together."
The main thing COSMOPOLITAN needs to hear:
... Western astrology is not — and has never been — about the actual constellations.... The zodiac signs and their qualities are not linked to the physical locations of the stars. Early astrologers merely used those stars as convenient markers for the twelve segments of the ecliptic: the path that the Sun takes across the sky over the course of a year. It’s these twelve segments (or Houses) that are important to astrology, and they just happen to be named after the constellations that early astrologers saw behind them.
The article goes on to describe how 'elements of an individual's chart' can change through the years (planets- or comets- or the Moon-being in different houses than they were the last time the Sun was in your natal-house), but that's the kinda stuff that Horoscope-writers are paid to monitor!
Comments
Post a Comment
I appreciate your comment, and I'll probably approve it & publish it soon (give me about a week before you try to post it again when it doesn't publish immediately ... thanks)