Print

Print


Hi!

R A Brown writes:
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > Hi!
> > R A Brown writes:
> [snip]
> >>Typical? Doesn't it rather depend upon whether a language forms
> >>head+attribute or attribute+head compounds?
> >>...
> >  By writing 'man-wolf', I meant 'man' modifying 'wolf' in whatever
> > order the particular language implements this.
>
> Right - I think saying 'order' in your original statement misled me.

Yeah, it was at least ambiguous.  Sorry!

> Yep - even the versions I gave with 'wolf' first support the point
> that 'wolf' is the head of the phrase and the 'man/human' word is the
> attribute. It does seem that people regarded these creatures as
> essentially wolves trapped for the most part in humanoid form, rather
> than humans who occasionally got transmogrified into wolves.

Would you happen to know until when the term 'versipellis' was know to
Romans or whether it was a Vulgar Latin word at all?  The dictionaries
say it is used by Plautus, but I have no clue how much it is used by
ordinary people, too, and how long.  Did it leave any trace in modern
Romance?

Elliot asked for the word and before that, I assumed Latin had none so
I compounded 'man-worf' in Ţrjótrunn.  But if it is used in Vulgar
Latin, I'd probably introduce at least a formal or ancient word, if
not a normal word, for 'werewolf' since the sound shifts are nice:
Versipellis > 'yspill' or maybe 'yrpill' (with a little consonant
cluster simplification).  With another syncope in most cases,
e.g. nom.pl. 'ysplir' or 'yrplir'.

**Henrik