I know what the ecliptic is. I understand the astronomical aspect of this. I wanted to know what you specifically mean by the word "sign".
We have zodiac symbols (similar to alphabetic characters) that some people call signs.
We have figures that emblematically represent signs.
We have names for each of these emblems that some people call signs (if someone says, what are Pisces, Aries, Taurus, etc., the other person answers, they are signs [of the zodiac]).
We have a simplified model of the constellations that are on the ecliptic that are divided into 12 segments of 30 degrees each that are labeled with "signs".
I would like to respond to this:
But I can't unless I know exactly what you mean by "sign".
We have zodiac symbols (similar to alphabetic characters) that some people call signs.
We have figures that emblematically represent signs.
We have names for each of these emblems that some people call signs (if someone says, what are Pisces, Aries, Taurus, etc., the other person answers, they are signs [of the zodiac]).
We have a simplified model of the constellations that are on the ecliptic that are divided into 12 segments of 30 degrees each that are labeled with "signs".
I would like to respond to this:
Quote:ReneZ Wrote:
The much more important distinction related to terminology is about 'constellations' and 'signs'. These are two completely different things. The aspects that we would now call astrological are related to the signs, not the constellations.
In ancient star catalogues, there are no signs but there are constellations.
But I can't unless I know exactly what you mean by "sign".