George wrote:
>So much for representational or ideological transference from me for now.
>As for phonetic transference, it is apparently here that we might explain
>the move from 'Erasmus' to 'Elmo'. According to Butler, 'There is no
>reasonable doubt that the appellation St Elmo or St Telmo is
>etymologically derived from St Erasmus, which became Eramus, then Ermus
>and finally Erom From this we get Elmo, just as Catalina comes from
>Catharina.' Any philologists out there who can confirm or crush this
>interpretation?
In so far a change r/l is concerned, nothing strange; the shift from
Erasmus to *Eramus, I believe, can be a semplification of a consonantic
group, as common in late latin; but ... is it not an uncommon thing, the
falling of a tonic _a_ from *Eramus to *Ermus? Then, I suppose, it
occurred a shift of the stress in pronunciation?
What if it was from *Erasmiolus (as usual in late latin), and from
here *Erasmjolus (with semi-consonantic j and shift of the accent on _o_),
from here *Ermjolus (always with tonic _o_) , then *Ermjo, from here
(with shift r/l) *Elmjo and then at last Elmo? I know, it seems very
complicated, but not inusual if you think at the romance languages.
Best wishes (and apologies for my english)
Annalisa
**********************************************
Annalisa Bracciotti
Università di Udine
E-Mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|