Print

Print


On 6/22/2017 4:49 AM, And Rosta wrote:
> On 22 June 2017 at 00:48, Fredrik Ekman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Puey McCleary wrote:
>>> Okay, the confusion may be from the phrase "the Nolach."  Perhaps
>>> "the" was a mistake in one version of the text, and now it's just
>>> been accepted (interpolated?), because the second and last use of
>>> the word Nolach does not use the article.
>> Just as David McCann suggests, the name of the king is used as a title for
>> his subjects.
>
> David's suggestion was rather that the king's name is also a title, as if
> our queen could also be _the Elizabeth_, tho it's true that his examples
> are in fact ones where all members of the clan bear the name, and then by
> regular English _the X_ can mean 'the one called _X_', 'the member of the X
> clan/family'. But in such a case, _the McCann_, referring to a McCann, a
> member of the clan, means not 'a subject of the leader of the MCanns' but
> rather just 'a member of the McCanns'. It is not as if I, by virtue of
> being a subject of Elizabeth, could be _the Elizabeth_ (-- which is not to
> say that on Mars I could not be an Elizabeth).
>
> (I don't know if this is common in Italian, but among my wife's siblings
> their respective families are named after the sibling: i gianluchi are the
> Gianluca family, i marianovelli are the Maria Novella family, and so forth.
> That technically makes me un marianovello, il marianovello che e suo
> marito. Whether the principles are sufficiently articulated to determine
> whether Gianluca is also un gianluco (when singled out from among i
> gianluchi), I don't know -- I expect he is in principle but not in actual
> usage.)
>
> --And.
>
It seems to me that, in the context of Scottish clans, I've seen the 
definite article used in just the opposite way: "the Douglas" referring 
only to the chief of the clan Douglas, not just to any member of the clan.

-- Tim