Re: [tied] Re: -ham

At 4:52:48 PM on Friday, January 9, 2004, g wrote:

> BMScott@ wrote:

I'll look at the rest later, but I can answer this question
quickly:

>> That one is misleading: it's in record in 1277 as
>> <Alhalming>, so it's from *<Adelhelm-ing>.

> Oh, was it a typo?

No, the second /l/ was lost through dissimilation. In fact,
already in 1299 it appears as <Alhaiming>.

Brian