Message: "Re: Which philologist?"

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Facts] Re: Which philologist?

by Elfstone

9/29/2006, 10:34 AM

The particular philologist is of no importance in this case. I've read an article where he deals with a play (and there's a character named Luka there), so his field is literature, not onomastics, I get it. I don't know where he got the information, nor how he comes to give the name such a long meaning 'one born at sunrise' seeing as there's only one element in this name. I'm very interested to know the sources, just like you:)

___________________________________________

Pureness rules the world

Replies

- Lumia +1

9/29/2006, 11:12 AM

A source (reliable or not) is always important when somebody comments a supposed origin/meaning/etc. of a name. So the name of the particular philologist is important. Perhaps somebody can say if this philologist has in general a very solid knowledge, and his/her affirmation can be considered (Joan Coromines, e.g.), if he/she is simply a dilettante, if he/she is usually solid in some languages, but his/her knowledge about other languages is very inexact...

Moreover, some apparently reliable sources (philologists, onomastics authors) make a big number of mistakes. So to know that a "considered as reliable" philologist/author made a mistake is important to estimate his/her reliability (a little mistake + another little mistake + another little mistake +... = a very big mistake = a not as reliable source).

So, since in this case the source of your affirmation is this philologist, I'm very interested to know his/her name.

Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com

- Elfstone

9/30/2006, 3:52 AM

Well, the guy's name is V.A.Hanov, he's Russian most probably. I've never heard of him before, and I've no idea how reliable his sources are. He's certainly not well-known, I would have heard of him if he were.

___________________________________________

Pureness rules the world

View Message

Replies