medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: "George H. Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Christopher Crockett wrote:
>> why no "imperpetuum"?
> Because modern lexicographers consider "in" + substantive to be a
preposition and therefore separated from its modified object....
thanks, George.
but that's the whole point (to the extent that there *is* a point left here),
isn't it?
the original questio was, "Is 'imperpetuum' a word?"
and the answer, from our esteemed palaeographical collegues, is "Yes."
since "imperpetuum" is found in numerous mss., it is a "word" --Q.E.D.
the fact that "imperpetuum" is, in fact, a corruption (perhaps that's not the
best technical term) of "in perpetuum" shouldn't make any difference,
viz-a-viz the fundamental question of whether or not "imperpetuum" is, indeed,
a word.
and, if it *is* a word, then it should be in Niermeyer's lexicon --or du
Cange, for that matter-- if only with a simple entry like, "Corruption of _in
perpetuum_"
i seem to be missing something here....
not for the first time, alas.
c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|