medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
>_imperpetuum_ strikes me as a false rendition of _in perpetuum_ originally
written with a line over the _i_, with the _n_ consequently omitted, and with
the two words squeezed together in such a fashion that an inattentive (and
perhaps tyro) copyist, reproducing the phrase in another text, might treat
them as one and render them in this fashion, choosing the wrong letter to
represent the previously omitted nasal. I would guess that the reported
occurrence (if it exists) comes from a second- or third-hard [sic: -hand?]
reference, e.g. in a register or in a citation in documentation from some
legal proceeding.
it doesn't even have to be that complicated, if its a question of a published
text --rather than a manuscript original or copy.
suchlike transcription errors are quite common in edited texts.
though, in this case i would think that a, say, 19th c. editor would have
"corrected" an "impereptuum" to "in perpetuum" if that was what was before
him, and he would not have expanded an "ī perpetuum" into "imperpetuum."
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
|