Re: Sin once more

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 12:53:42 PM on Saturday, August 2, 2008, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "indravayu" <sonno3@>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yes, though I believe that I've finally figured out
> >>>>> what you're trying to say. You're claiming that the
> >>>>> standard interpretation of <Míl> as a mangled version
> >>>>> of <Miles (Hispaniae)> is an attempt to etymologize
> >>>>> the Irish name, possibly incorrect, and that any
> >>>>> conclusions resting on the interpretation are
> >>>>> therefore also tentative. Correct?
>
> >>>> Yes.
>
> >>> That's an idiotic position to take.
>
> >> Care to elaborate?
>
> > The standard theory wants us to believe that whoever
> > translated Isidor's Miles Hispaniae to Mil Espain knew so
> > little Latin that he didn't recognize the word miles
> > "soldier", tranlating it instead as a proper name.
>
> No, it doesn't. Re-read Ó Corráin:
>
> One of the nodal characters in this legend is Míl of
> Spain, a transparent literary invention (= Miles
> Hispaniae, `Soldier of Spain').
>
> Note the key phrase: 'literary _invention_'. The
> transformation of <miles> to <Míl> is taken to be
> deliberate.

OK, so in order to impress the learned world with the great age and
wisdom of the Irish people the authors of the Lebor Gabala Erenn
re-interpreted the Latin word miles, which learned people would have
known from their first year of studying Latin to mean "soldier", and
reinterpreted that to be a name? If I had done that I think I would
have provided a footnote so that people wouldn't think I'm an idiot,
but on the other hand it was very dark in the Dark Ages and ink was
expensive, and you never know what they might have been thinking.


Torsten