whats with the K

[The Bookwyrm]

iolitefire

blindfaith^_^

I can kind of understand why Crowley did it, but I actually have friends who are almost fluent in Old English and from what they told me, magic was not spelled 'magick' in that language. It was actually spelled 'magik'. No language spelled magic as 'magick'. There was magic, magik, magia, magie, and magique though.

Actually, it can be spelled as "magick" with Old English; there was no established way of spelling, so it varied from author to author with some forms being more popular (obviously being influenced by who you've read and where you recieved your education. wink

But back to the original subject... I've used the spelling with the k, but I've dropped it for my own reasons. I mean, yes, it gets used to distinguish between Occult and stage magic. Great. But what happens when you're vebrally discussing it? You don't pause in the sentence and say "That's magick, with a k!" If I don't need to distinguish it when I'm speaking, why the hell should I when I'm writing?

 

[Jezehbelle]

I really don't write "magic" or "magick" enough to know which one I write. It's probably "magic". If I were talking about "stage magic", I'd probably write "stage magic", but now I'm conciously thinking about it, so I don't know.  

[Redwing~Shadow]

the term and meaning is all the same, regardless of how you spell it, its becasue of the stereotypes and bad roumors about magic that ppl decided to split the two up. One regards magic ppl would see from a magician or preformer, or something, the other accually has to do with its term, and i guess the spelling makes it easier for ppl who dont obviously know much to see that there is a difference. But all the same it doesnt make a difference, and seeing some of those fake magicians and preformers annoys me becasue they are the ones who brought this conclusion to society in the first place.  

[Cosmic Space Orange]

Redwing~Shadow

the term and meaning is all the same, regardless of how you spell it, its becasue of the stereotypes and bad roumors about magic that ppl decided to split the two up. One regards magic ppl would see from a magician or preformer, or something, the other accually has to do with its term, and i guess the spelling makes it easier for ppl who dont obviously know much to see that there is a difference. But all the same it doesnt make a difference, and seeing some of those fake magicians and preformers annoys me becasue they are the ones who brought this conclusion to society in the first place.

how do they annoy you? by having a skill?  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

I'm always slightly amused by the argument of "it's to distinguish us from stage practitioners" when it seems rather unlikely that one would confuse the two considering the context each conversation would have.

I prefer Crowley's numerology reason though.  

[Pelta]

Nihilistic Seraph

I'm always slightly amused by the argument of "it's to distinguish us from stage practitioners" when it seems rather unlikely that one would confuse the two considering the context each conversation would have.

Exactly! Would someone really have to go out of their way to make things complicated when it's all contextual?

When I'm talking about magic with my friends they know what I'm talking about. Even with strangers, if I were to say, "I practise magic," they would understand within the context. David Copperfield pulling a rabbit out of a hat and calling it, "magic" would be equally as understood. The whole debate of differentiation is ridiculous!  

[Rustig]

Personally, I spell it with a -k because I want to, and I can. I don't know much about Crowley's numerology idea, and I have seen rather a lot of books /about/ magick spelling it with a -k, and not a single stage-magic one being spelled with a -k. As for the Old English or whatever spelling, does it matter how it used to be spelled? I don't see people protesting that "olde" is how one should spell 'old' - just because that's the way it was written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it's the right way to spell it.

At the end of the day, you get to decide how to spell the word, and there aren't many words in the English Language that let you do that, so pick your favourite and don't bash the folk who pick the other one, plz.  

[Pelta]

Mitsh

At the end of the day, you get to decide how to spell the word, and there aren't many words in the English Language that let you do that, so pick your favourite and don't bash the folk who pick the other one, plz.

But why would you be allowed to spell that particular word any way you like and not any others?

U meeen I cud speeelk anhy wyitch whay I lyke whyth osher wyrds tuu?  

[Rustig]

Pelta

Mitsh

At the end of the day, you get to decide how to spell the word, and there aren't many words in the English Language that let you do that, so pick your favourite and don't bash the folk who pick the other one, plz.

But why would you be allowed to spell that particular word any way you like and not any others?

U meeen I cud speeelk anhy wyitch whay I lyke whyth osher wyrds tuu?

Because people in the magickal community as a whole don't spazz when you say "magick" instead of "magic", as they recognise and understand both terms. Likewise, if you could get the english-speaking world as a whole to accept the word "meeen" as an alternative for "mean", then you'd be allowed to spell it that way, it'd be accepted into the COED, and all would be happy. The number of folk using a word /make/ that word a word, and since there're lots and lots of people using the word 'magick', it's as valid as any other word that's come into play recently. If you can make a significant part of the population accept "meeen" as an alternative, then go you, it's now a valid word. X3  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

I'll have to agree with Mitsh here. Adding the k does not detract from the English lanuage, and in fact the k has been used in older forms of English. Just take a look at the chages laid to Thomas Aikenhead in 1696

Quote:

"That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Mahomet to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ".

The language hasn't changed that much in four hundred years, compared to the changes brought by the Saxons and the Normans, so I don't think this should really be a problem. I see the k as fun to read on occasion, and as long as the person has a good reason to use it, why not?  

[iolitefire]

Nihilistic Seraph

I'll have to agree with Mitsh here. Adding the k does not detract from the English lanuage, and in fact the k has been used in older forms of English. Just take a look at the chages laid to Thomas Aikenhead in 1696

Quote:

"That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Mahomet to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ".

The language hasn't changed that much in four hundred years, compared to the changes brought by the Saxons and the Normans, so I don't think this should really be a problem. I see the k as fun to read on occasion, and as long as the person has a good reason to use it, why not?

My beef isn't with the k. Magik is a fine word. I just don't think the 'ck' together (making the word 'Magick') is as ancient or old as people give it credit for. Its not really Old english. Old English borrowed a lot from german and nordic languages. Neither of which really use the 'ck' from what I have seen.
Sure some languages may spell it as magick, but so far I haven't seen any. If you wanna spell magic as magick, then don't do it because 'thats the ancient way of spelling it'.  

[deathcomes_onsilentwings]

Personally, I don't care any which way. Spell it how you like. I usually write it without the k, but that's just because I was taught to spell it that way.
...Although 'magik' is an awesome way to spell it! lol xp  

[Cosmic Space Orange]

I liek two spell words differant ckause it lookcs ckooler  

[Curiously Fruity]

I think what I'm going to do is avoid using the word as much as possible except when in discussions. I don't really like using the word because I don't think it's all that appropriate. But, that's just me.  

[Starlock]

It doesn't much matter to me either way, but there is a strong usefulness to posting articles about magic under an alternative spelling for the simple reason that it makes text-based searches for information easier.

Just go type "magic" in google, then type "magick" and you'll see what I'm talking about. If I ever post any articles online, I will probably use the Crowlean spelling.