At 5:58:57 AM on Thursday, December 6, 2007, tgpedersen
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>> So, any relation to George? The one from Wassa's ton?
> Hard to say.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_Tyne_and_Wear
> This article roots for *hwæs- but doesn't document the h-;
> instead it cites a Wasindone from 1096.
The <Washington> in Tyne and Wear is 'the estate called
after Hwæssa', from OE <Hwæssingtûn>. Forms:
Wessint', Wessinton ~1170x80
Wessington('),-yng- 1183[~1320], 1196x1215-1473
Wesshyngton, -yng- 1411-1556
Wassinton' 1211
Wassington, -yng- 1382, 1418
Wasshin(g)ton 1406
Washington 1581-
Quessigton' 1280
Quessigton' ~1310
Whessyngton 1475, 1548
Qwassyngton 1388x1406
Whassington, -yng- 1350-70
It's the third group that shows that the base anthroponym
must have been <Hwæssa> rather than <Wassa> (see below).
Victor Watts notes that the first two groups seem to have
been influenced by OE <wæsse> 'a wet place, a swamp, a
marsh', which however does not at all fit the topography.
The name <Hwæssa> is also seen in <Whessoe> (Durham).
The <Washington> in West Sussex is 'the settlement of the
Wassingas, the people called after Wassa', from OE
<Wassingatûn>. Forms:
Wessingatun 946x7[12th c.]
(æt) Wassingatune, Wasingatun 947[13th c.]
(æt) Wasingatune 963[13th c.]
Wassingatune before 1080
Wasingetune 1086
Wassington 1261-1439
Washington 1397
Brian