Re: [tied] Re: auðaz? = o:ðaz? ?

At 6:20:56 PM on Monday, July 11, 2005, Lisa wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>> cf the Belgian towns
>> Braine-l'Alleud/Eigenbrakel
>> Braine-le-Comte/s'Gravenbrakel

> So am I right in thinking it's substrate in PGmc?

Not necessarily; Torsten is uncommonly quick to see
substrate elements in Germanic.

[...]

> Ah. I wasn't [/ still am not =P ] sure if ON au always
> came from PGmc au or o:.

From *au; PGmc *o: remains o: in stressed syllables.

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>> 1. Proto-Germanic *d and *ð are the same phoneme.

> Allophones of a phoneme, you mean?

Different conventions for writing the same PGmc phoneme; *ð
is preferable, but *d is easier (and was much easier in the
days of typewriters).

[...]

> And why such a disconnect from 'noble' to 'inherited
> property'?

According to OED2, the original signification of the 'noble'
word seems to have been 'race, ancestry', whence in WGmc
'distinguished race, good family, nobility'; 'ancestral
land, patrimony' goes nicely with 'race, ancestry'.

[...]

> I don't think I caught the reason for the -[V]l in the one
> version of the word/noun. Could you explain?

Watkins thinks that it represents PIE *al- (which I assume
is *H2el-) 'to nourish' but notes that *at-al- 'race,
family' was already a compound in PIE.

Brian