Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 12/23/05, *R A Brown* <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>     Spot on! It's a Latinized version of a Greek borrowing, which is quite
>     common practice in English. 
> Was it borrowed first from Greek into Latin and then from Latin into 
> English, or was it borrowed directly from Greek into English but treated 
> as Latin?

The word is not attested in Classical Latin. I suspect it was borrowed
strait from Greek, but Latinized in the way that borrowings from Greek 
generally were.

>     It is actually a passive participle in Greek
>     and is feminine because it agrees with the word for 'day' which, if
>     context is clear, can be omitted (or "understood"):
>     hai epagomenai [he:merai] = the intercalated [days]
>     singular:
>     he: epagomene: [he:mera:] = the intercalated [day]
> Ah!  In the original Egyptian calendar the epagomenal period was 
> nameless (although the individual days  eventually acquired names), but
> by the time the Copts adopted it the period was treated as a short 13th 
> month named "Epagomene:".  That must have originated from referring to 
> them as "epagomenal [day] 1, epagomenal [day] 2", etc., which got 
> re-analyzed with "epagomenal" as the name of the month.

Presumably - the Greek word for month was masculine (meis, [gen.] 
me:nos). It looks as tho the Copts adopted the Greek feminine singular, 
re-analyzing it in the sort of way you suggest.


You're welcome.

Kala Khristougenna!

[log in to unmask]