Solutions

 

Is Aurelianus>Arthur probable? A close phonological examination

(A commentary to Peter Korrel. An Arthurian Triangle[1])

 

Peter Korrel declares not to be acquainted with any phonetic law to derive Arthur from Aurelianus and speaks of a corruption. Though, this can be made transparent, if we envisage, that in names or nouns, that are used often, developments can go faster and far. An example of such an accelerated devolution is Latin utensilium>outil in French, and  in many languages exist many of them.

A plausible possibility in my opinion is the next one (at first sight roughly)

Aureliánus>Á^url^énus>Árlnus>Árthus which was identified with the existing name Arthus/Arthur, this -r being just the Cymric way of pronouncing the same as in Breton is pronounced as -s, in view of the same name there being pronounced ‘Artus’, and always of the resemblance with  ‘Arthur’ exerting its influence.

Essential is the abbreviation caused by quick pronunciation while the word-stress shifts forward continueing to obey to the Cymric tendency of putting it on the penultimate syllable.

A remark about ln>th: This is the two dental gliders ln- becoming voiceless.

In short: Cymrisation was what took place.

This etymology, if well understood, accounts for much: the shift of the stress, for the syllable Ar-, for -th, for -us, for the disappearance from ‘Aurelianus’ of first -u- and -e-.

But is not -ia-  falling away argued too simply? Well, at least the long sound, the diphthongue -au(r)- may soon be responsible for a balance of two stresses, on -au-  and on -ia-, and any development will favorise onee of both of them. So two possibilities were open, either a possible result ‘Arlé^anus’ or something like that or what we find later, to wit ‘Arthur’.

So the probability on beforehand is 50%. If this choice was made, the rest follows in a predictable way, like explained by Hans Krahe 'Germanische Sprachwissenschaft' (Berlin 1965), who speaks of 'the gradual detrition of the ending syllables' by the stress in Germanic (italics J.Th.) laying on the first syllable. So 50% is lacking for attaining the status of a full proof.

Now one  can say: the appearance of ‘Arthur’ in the place of ‘Aurelianus’ itself is the proof. But full predictive force, if attainable, is better. Let us help ourselves by  fancying Aurelianus as a part of a hexameter, that is based on length of syllables: Âureliânus. Reckon with the fact that the long name should be pronounced fast, especially for the reason of fitting into Cymric speech. Now shorten the word. The ‘aur’- element remains longer then‘lia‘, because the diphthongue of the first type lasts objectively far longer (a diphthongue followed by  -r-) then the second one (while also the ending ‘nus’ is longer then the latter). The shorter the word becomes, the greater the invitation to deliver a result within a range from Árlienus to ‘Árl’nus. For comparison: Yesterday, 6-8-2008 I watched on BBC2 a visit to a monastery on the isle of Patmos, where a monk was inteviewed who called himself Martinianós; -ia- was not pronounced noticeably longer than the first -i-. Thus the shortening may favorise the word-stress. Now Cymric favorises the penultimate syllable. So might as well have been the second accent already existing (this at itself being its advantage), but because of already some balance of stresses caused by duration, the more shortening takes place, the more duration of the syllables will play the predominant role, with, at is turn, then subsequent ongoing shortening with the same effect ongoing, all this happening while that law of Cymric is working. So the result is likely to be the the victory of stress on the first syllable. So equally likely the said by Krahe will apply also to this case. In this way one can predict from differences in duration which of the syllables will presumably win the battle for stress.

One may have the impression, that this process is one over many centuries… Now such a mouthful between the first and the last syllable in combination with the Cymric law of stress mentioned, in this case, remains an obstacle to the theory. Therefore let us consider things closer. The reciprocal self-accelerating process mentioned depends on the stress put at a given moment on Aur- and velocity of speech, but the central syllable counteracts it just because of that law of Cymric, not just by favouring its maintenance, but by failing to apply anyway. Does this torpedo the theory? Only if, as soon as the stress on -aur- surpasses the one on -lia- and the speaker expects but one syllable still to come, the process is unhampered. But a) like we saw, the first -e- is likely already to have been dropped, b) the process of shifting stress once having been  initiated by the need to shorten the too long word for Cymric use, the Cymric law mentioned at its turn urges the speaker to speed up the process, which reduces the obstacle, the expectation of successfully taking the step being fed, which, while being done, at the same time makes the obstacle disappear entirely. The obstacle is, when examined closer: the jump Aurlĭănus>Áurlnus. Now ‘Aurlĭănus’ ‘wishes’ to become ‘Áurlĭănus’, and that law of Cymric, or a general one, dictates or seduces at the same time the syncope of ‘ĭă’. So: As soon as -aur- gets the emphasis, the shortening to - ĭă- appears, but on condition of the shortening to - ĭă- appearing. The solution of this paradox only is made possible as an effect of  the whole word being shortened, caused by speed, as an adaptation to Cymric speech. This makes - ĭă- so short as to be a willing victim of syncopation. So the hen Aurelianus will have laid the egg Arthur soon. Like a seesaw turning over. Aurelianus>Arlnus, -ln- in a Cymric way at the same time made voiceless and -s- being rhotacised, so ‘Aurelianus’ ssoon becoming  ‘Arlnu^r/s’,  which is factually the same as ‘Arthu^r/s’, which stabilised itself as ‘Arthur’, not during centuries but rather in no time. What happened was simply cymrisation of ‘Aurelianus’. 

- l - becoming voiceless we also saw in 19^th –century Dutch vélocipède>vielesepee>fiets…(-ie- is pronounced fi:ts),  I suppose not so much influenced by the voiceless -s- , but by the l’s collision with it (but initial v>f follows a more general Dutch tendency) , m.m. with -n-, and, what is more, being ‘squeezed’ between r and n, at the same time immediately influencing  -n- to becoming voiceless.

In resume: It is very well possible, even far from improbable, that the insertion in Cymric caused a devolution from Aurelianus to ‘Arthur’. I tried to eliminate letting influence myself in reconstruction by the result to be and at least attained in this way Aurelianus>Árlnur, which is not so far from ‘Arthur’, that occupies the place of Aurelianus, and anyhow is a good candidate. The supposed bridging through -ln- becoming voiceless is the first thing done by me as inspired by the candidate, and it would be a good thing, when cymrologists (myself I only have read some descriptions of  Welsh) could do the same as the vast majority of Dutch investigators do with velocipede>fiets (not only the -l-). So the proof of plausibility may be completed.

 

Postscriptum: Yesterday (now its is 20 sept. 2008) occurred to me the experimental proof of the mechanism that leads from Aurelianus until Arlnus. While watching on TV a program about the replacement of the Abu-Simbel-complex I heard an American say ‘horznl’ instead of ‘horizontal’, which follows m.m. accurately the path of this sound-shifting. This shows Peter Korrel’s conclusion in favour of Arthur being Aurelianus as being the most probable one indeed.

 

                                                                                                                                                      J.M.M. Thurlings

 

How phonology can help us, see also my ‘Appearance and Essence. A New Insight about dating the Gospel of Luke in relation to other datings’  

 

Solutions  >