--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:
>
> But there are plenty of cases of name changes, especially when
dealing with´"barbarians" --there are translations, as in the case of
my Shawnee ancestor "Cornstalk"; also see Red Cloud, Sitting Bull,
etc. There are corruptions, as in the case of Sorley Boy Mac Donald
from Somherlaidh Buidhe (sp?) who was therefore a blond rather than a
kid, as well as Scanderbeg who surely neither scampered nor begged --
and wasn´t his given name George? Even Saddam Hussein is said to have
reversed his name from Hussein Saddam. And then there are arbitrarily
given names or nicknames such as Geronimo, Barbarossa (the North
African corsairs, as well as the German emperor). Given that we live
in more literate times, we can´t fully appreciate the opportunities
for false etymologies, embellishments, etc. from peoples with oral
literature.
1) One of the peoples making 'oral literature' was Homer himself...
So that 'you [pl.]?' that 'can't fully appreciate the oral
literature', are in 'a delicate situation' when 'you [pl.]?' start to
talk about this.
2) Could you also deduce that the usage of the plural form ('we')
above is not appropriate? And I say this to help you.
3) On the other hand, in the 'literate world' (that you invoked
trying to make implicit inclusions) the presence of the Greeks names
together with 'Trojans' Names in Troja (Homer) are really a subject
of disputes and interpretations
But it's not my fault that you are not aware of this.
3) Next, 'nobody' (to folow your 'we' construction) in the 'literate
world' talk about Greek adaptations of Barbarians names at Homer (not
to talk about corruptions as 'Sorley Boy Mac Donald cases'): there
are two classes of names rather distinct: the Greek Names and the Non-
Greek Ones. Do 'you (pl.)' know this?
4) Finally you nervous reaction doesn't belong neither to the 'oral
literature' nor to 'the written one'...
Marius