Re: [tied] Hekto:r etymology

I'm sure that this is really not the forum for this,
but there are plenty of texts that deal with literacy
and orality, Walter J. Ong's being one of them. My
point is that even literate societies often replace
the name of the other. You might want to check out
cultural theory that deals with the other. When I say
that those of us who have been schooled in literate
societies really can't appreciate oral literature, I
do make a value judgement but one based on common
sense. Again see works on orality vs literate
societies. Don't just take my word.
The point in my posting is that there are plenty of
name changes. Why should the Greeks be different.
BTW: How about Biblical names of the other? Names of
the other in other sacred texts.
Another example that comes to mind is Abu-Abd-Allah,
the last king of Muslim Granada in present day Spain.
In Spanish, his name was corrupted to Bodadilla el
Chico. Bobadilla is a false etymology in Spanish
roughly meaning "foolishness, idiocy".

--- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

> --- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news