Chris Bates wrote:
>> Yep - even the versions I gave with 'wolf' first support the point
>> that 'wolf' is the head of the phrase and the 'man/human' word is the
>> attribute. It does seem that people regarded these creatures as
>> essentially wolves trapped for the most part in humanoid form, rather
>> than humans who occasionally got transmogrified into wolves.
>
[snip]
> I would argue that in English, semantically at least, a werewolf is seen
> as a man who turns into a wolf, and not as a wolf who turns into a man.
That's because you're loving in the 21st century. Clearly to our Saxon
forebears it was a 'man-wolf'. I was trying to make sense out of
compounds formed many centuries ago when people took such creatures more
seriously.
But without a detailed research it is surely not possible to say how
peoples a millennium ago and two millennia ago regarded such creatures.
==================================
> Den 18. sep. 2006 kl. 16.07 skrev Chris Bates:
>
>> I would argue that in English, semantically at least, a werewolf is seen as a
>> man who turns into a wolf, and not as a wolf who turns into a man.
>
>
> Perhaps he reveals his true nature when he turns into a wolf(?)
Quite so. If one believes in such creatures, this would seem to me a
perfectly natural way to think.
===================================
> 2006/9/16, R A Brown <ray@...>:
[snip]
>> > But if it is used in Vulgar Latin,
>>
>> It wasn't - you're compound is likely, given the scenario of your language.
>
>
> Might LUPONE be a possible formation?
?Vulgar Latin *lupone would presumably mean "wolflet', methinks.
> I guess one might get
> _lobóu_ from LUPU HOMO in R3, but how realistic would *that* be?
One could imagine *luphomo (gen. *luphominis) - where |ph| = [p_h] -
being formed as a calque of the Greek 'lykanthropos'. This would have
given a Vulgar Latin *lupOmne
[snip]
> assuming HOMINE > *omne > *omme > /uom/, provided that
> M'N > mm *is* a realistic change for a Romance language
It happened in Old French, i.e. (h)omme = 'man'
> -- I want it to be but I'm not so sure! What's the track by which
> HOMINE became _homme_ but HOMO became _on_ in French?
The nom. (h)Omo --> /Om/ --> /0~/. The later was spelled _(h)om_ in Old
French. But the sound /O~/ could equally well be spelled *(h)on, and
when it became dissociated from _(h)omme_ and took on a new role as a
pronoun, the simple spelling _on_ was adopted. *There never was a change
/m/ --> /n/*
> And what's the story behind DOMINU > _Dom_ as an ecclesiatical
> appellative (if that is the right word?)
Used AFAIK principally by the Benedictine order.
> I'm not even sure in what language DOMINU > _Dom_ might have happened!
Portuguese.
AFAIK the
> regular outcome is _don_ in both Spanish and Italian, with
> _doña/donna_ < DOMINA. Is _Dom_ archaic French?
Nope - it's Portuguese, see above. Why the Benedictines should have
adopted this form when other took the Spanish/Italian 'Don' I know not.
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB}