أوائل المحاولات لتأصيل الأسماء و الخوض في اللسانيات . طرح فيه أفلاطون سؤال مهم يتعلق بأصل الأسماء هل هي طبيعية ، بمعنى هل يحاكي الاسم جوهر الشيء كما هو في الطبيعة ، أم هي اصطلاحية ، بمعنى تواضع عليها الناس و اتفقوا بشأنها كما يحلو لهم .
و تمت مناقشة الكثير من المواضيع ذات الصلة ، مثل من الأجدر بإطلاق الأسماء ، وظيفة الإسم ، الحركة و الثبات و نظرية هيراقليطس ، و اجتهادات كثيرة لأفلاطون فيما يخص اشتقاق الكلمات اليونانية .
محاورة مفيدة بأسلوب سقراط الممتع .

Imagino que este seja o diálogo mais importante para ser lido no idioma original, já que aqui é tratada a questão da origem das palavras, e assim sendo, a tradução nunca alcançará as nuances que são captadas quanod temos conhecimento do grego antigo.

Socrates talks about etymology, metaphysics, mythology, and linguistics in this dialogue. A lot of small, interesting bits and pieces here and there. It was rather short, although it did bore me towards the end. Just not as enjoyable read as other ones.

Platonic Etymology

The names have meanings reflective of the perfect form and characteristics of the thing names. Taking a Socratic dialogue, Plato explores the root of the name of the gods as well many other words. Reminiscent of my learnings of Hebrew as well, where not only the words, but the letters themselves imbue meaning, the book will make you more aware of the world around you.

A dialética ocupa muito espaço; deve ser mais interessante em uma releitura mais informada. Mesmo assim, é uma discussão interessante!

La esencia del diálogo es interesante pero en si las largas paginas de etimología griega sin saber griego se hacen pesadas, aunque curiosas e incluso graciosas algunas de las conclusiones a las que llega.

También resulta muy gracioso como Platón se burla (si se entiende en tono irónico) planteando la etimología como algo absurdo de lo que ironizar.

Por último, muy curioso como accidentalmente hace un análisis fonético que sirve a día de hoy, con los sonidos fricativos, oclusivos... (eso que das en lengua en el instituto)

Read the translation in Cooper ed.

this clarifies so much of the whole process of studying linguistics
and i know that Aristotle made a better version of Cratylus with Catergories but still, Cratylus is so much fun (when you understand it)

It was broadly applicable, but then strayed into the too specific for too long, though he did meander back to the broadly applicable.

موضوع این رساله‌ی افلاطون واژه‌ها و ریشه‌‌یابی آنهاست. به همین دلیل به نظرم بهترین حالت خواندنش این است که به زبان یونانی خوانده شود. چون نه خواندنش به زبان فارسی و نه انگلیسی به فهم ریشه‌ی واژه‌های یونانی، اسامی خداهای یونانی و غیره کمک نمی‌کند.

Bella la prima sulla creazione dei nomi e l'ultima sulla loro inaffidabilità ai fini della ricerca della verità. In mezzo tantissime etimologie, un po' difficili per chi non ha dimestichezza con il greco antico. Bellissimi e utili i paragoni fra l'arte di creare le parole e le altre arti, fra cui la forgiatura e la pittura.

Socrates is asked by two men, Cratylus and Hermogenes, to tell them whether names are "conventional" or "natural", that is, whether language is a system of arbitrary signs or whether words have an intrinsic relation to the things they signify
Cratylus says names are natural and there is truth in names and words in Greek as in other languages, and for barbarians.
Hermogenes says they are but convention and agreed on their meaning; so that if you change the word for something, the new word is just as correct as the old one

What is very interesting to me about this dialogue is the stress on natural names and its multi-dialogue implications. We have seen in Protagoras and Euthydemus Callias III and Cleinias III in which both are being held up to the legacy of each their great-grandfathers and their great-grandfather’s great-grandfathers.
Cleinias III, a youth of great expectations, in particular is said to be keenly looked after in his upbringing so he does not fail Athens in measuring up to Cleinias I and II. They would strip him of his name if he didn’t meet the standard of wisdom and virtue they expect of him. Moreover, it’s the same with his family name both belonging to the Alcmaeonidae ancestry.
Callias III, senior in his years, is highly respected as the head of one of the wealthiest households and assists in the development of Cleinias III, his second/third cousin.
On the other hand, Hermogenes, Socrates dear friend and Callias III illegitimate brother, has fallen through the cracks of Athens, living in a neighbourhood outside its walls; nobody holds him accountable to his father’s name, however, the dialogue begins with Cratylus shaming Hermogenes for keeping his namesake: For first of all it means “Born of Hermes, god of Fortune and Luck, etc.” and second of all it is the name his father gave him, but Cratylus makes the point that Hermogenes “chases after fortune but has none”, thus it must not be his true name, for his nature is quite the opposite. Hermogenes will later attest to this.

A second point, relating to Socrates trial later in life, here is seen one instance the grounds for which he is mistakenly prosecuted in court for impiety - he says in earnest that the tragic poets had an impossible task of bringing the Gods of mythology to life, for all the poets can do is decipher the human notions of the Gods (to which he later says the poets made an awful mess at it), just as in the Protagoras, Socrates argues for Truth rather than the stale convention which the Pious Athenians hold to. Socrates statement here is this: “We know nothing of the Gods, either of their natures or of the names which they give themselves, but we are sure their names, whatever they may be, are true. We shall call them by which names they like, because we do not know of any other. Our inquiry is not of the Gods themselves, but about the meaning of men in giving the God’s these names.”

Socrates whole argument, in conclusion, is to say that words and names which convey truth must be natural, founded in the proper use of letters and built into true or false propositions; false words are those made by convention, using letters conventionally (Socrates highlights the distinction between old and new tongues/dialects denoting the rise of exchanging natural letters for conventional ones based on making a word more grandeur or easier on the tongue at the sake of reducing its natural meaning, i.e., ‘day’ (ἱμἐρα) was derived from ‘love of light’ (ἱμεἰρουσι), but has changed to ‘day’ (ἡμἐρα) derived from ‘gentle’ (ἥμερα).
Also, Socrates' analysis finds Heraclitus to be the dominating mode of thought on legislators for Socrates’ antiquity: meaning that all Ancient Greek terms of philosophy have their roots in movement, where good is motion and bad is non-motion or the impediment to motion. This from Heraclitus doctrine: “all things are in motion and nothing at rest”. Also, of this, Socrates says: “I believe that the primeval givers [presocratic philosophers] of names were undoubtedly like too many of our modern philosophers, who, in their search after the nature of things, are always getting dizzy from constantly going round and round, and then they imagine that the world is going round and round and moving in all directions; and this appearance, which arises out of their own internal condition, they suppose to be a reality of nature; they think that there is nothing stable or permanent, but only flux and motion, and that the world is always full of every sort of motion and change.”, a beautiful statement supporting the Hercleitian metaphysics “Dikaion (justice) is the sun for it is the only guardian of nature which is diaionta (piercing) and kaonta (burning)”; and “We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.” - not only using Protagoras’ and Euthydemus’ ambiguity in language against them (“both” signifying you and me; do and do not), but reducing each their arguments “things are as they appear to any one” and “All things equally belong to all men at the same moment and always” by only describing the etmnology of the language being used. It is a brilliant swoop at the enemies of Truth, but will it pay off or will Socrates be condemned to exile or death? That answer is coming soon in the Euthyphro!