Re: [tied] Re: Wuz

At 4:07:43 AM on Wednesday, July 14, 2004, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 7:37:40 AM on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>>>> Künzel, Blok, & Verhoeff, Lexicon van nederlandse
>>>> toponiemen tot 1200, have the citation <Philippus de
>>>> Wasnare> 1200 [1305] and say: wrsch. onl. _hare_
>>>> 'hoogte, heuvelrug' met bijv. nw. _wasn_ (< dativus
>>>> singularis *_hwassan_) 'scherp' (vgl. oe. _hwass_).

>>> Given Swedish vass 'reed(s)' (I think most Lexicon etc
>>> writers wouldn't be aware that it existed),

>> Seems a strange assumption; the word's in every
>> Swedish-English bilingual that I own, in both directions,
>> and is described as 'common'. (I'm not sure what you mean
>> by 'Lexicon etc writers'; all three authors are serious
>> toponymists.)

> That may be so. It seems an obvious choice, so I just
> puzzled it wasn't discussed or even mentioned. Do you have
> a better explanation of why that is so?

To the best of my knowledge the word is completely isolated
even within N.Gmc., unless one assumes that it belongs with
<vada> 'to wade', which is already pretty conjectural and
also requires a semantic development that could not
reasonably be assumed elsewhere. This all makes it a very
weak candidate to appear in a Dutch place-name. If the
etymologies were the main point of the book, perhaps even
something so unlikely might be discussed, but in fact the
main point is the documentary evidence.

Brian