Posted by Peter H on January 11, 2003 at 15:43:27 from 213.122.75.233 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: RIO posted by Adam Quinan on January 11, 2003 at 03:18:56:
Yes, of course, the text tells us on the face of it that the Swallows named 'Rio' after 'Rio Grande'. You can't argue with that. What I am trying to do is take up Ed Kiser's query as to why they always thereafter call it just 'Rio'.
There seem to be two answers - one is that AR was careless here, and used 'Rio' and 'Rio Grande' without thinking too much about it. I think we can rule that out. The other explanation is that AR deliberately let his child characters assume that 'Rio Grande' was a place, and inappropriately call the lakeside village 'Rio'.
Let's look at the candidates for 'Rio Grande' as a place, rather than a river - my atlas lists only two:
1) Rio Grande in the southern tip of Brazil, on the coast (also once known as S. Pedro do Sul), in the area known as 'Rio Grande do Sul'. No, I don't think so.
2) Rio Grande, Texas, situated on the Rio Grande, roughly 100 miles inland. Is the Rio Grande navigable this far? Would it be the destination celebrated in the shanty? Can US correspondents help here?
If this 'Rio' is a famous old landing place for ocean-going ships, then I am happy to acknowledge that this 'Rio' is the one the Swallows referred to, and the one the shanty referred to, and I have learnt something new.