No, actually what I'm saying is that you build your whole argument on a text of Zosimus, and the text of Zosimus was transcribed in a Codex (the source code) called Codex Vaticanus Graecus.
Are you following me? OK.
Then .... we have to observe that this 'Vaticanus Graecus' was written in different phases between X, XI and XII century. So we can state that your observations about the Latin spelling of the Latin name Aetius, these ones:
Originally Posted by Renatus
they are based on a Byzantine Medieval copy, created between five and eight centuries after the age in which the Roman character Aetius lived.
Till now I suppose that you may agree with me.
Now we should consider the language used by Zosimus, it was Greek, but before reaching the copysts, who created the 'Vaticanus Graecus', it was written in a language created in the VIII century, that is three centuries after Flavius Aetius and Zosimus lived and if you have studied the matter or have some interest in the matter, you certainly know that the issues existing between the Greek language and the 'graphic morphology' of the Greek languge created in the VIII century, are many, very interesting and of various nature.
In my opinion, it's not a matter of falsifying or misinterpreting the originals, but it's a matter concerning our critical approach to the ancient sources, we should ask to the historical sources only what they can give us, and nothing else, and let me say that asking to Zosimus the Latin sound of the name Aetius is one of the questions we cannot seriously pose to the poor Vaticanus Graecus!
- About the accent and the spirits ... well, they play an important role in this (sorry, let me use this horrid expression) 'graphic rendering' of the Greek language created by the Byzantines, so I erroneously presumed that you was referring to the quality of the accents for your thesis, but you was far away from there, so ... sorry, I presumed too much! Your argument wasn't so subtle! Sorry again.
- Anyway the matter doesn't change:
You are trying to explain us, the correct sound of the Latin name 'Aetius', basing your arguments on a text composed between the X and the XII centuries, that is, five or eight centuries after its first composition, a text based on a now lost source written in language created in the VIII century AD, that is, three centuries after Zosimus had written it, in the V century (using a different written language), so I think that this way to prove your assumption about the Latin sound of Aetius, is absolutely weak.
Your argument is like trying to explain the use of the Franziska throwing axe, found in many Anglo-Saxon sites, using the rules of the Cricket! It may be suggestive but it's also very ... weak!
- About my 'preconceived opinions' , what can I say? ... do you know them? I don't know them. I've to admit that I already have many doubts about my 'normal opinions', imagine the situation about the 'preconceived' ones!