From: he_who_must_not_be_named
Message: 34858
Date: 2004-10-27
> At 3:33:06 AM on Tuesday, October 26, 2004,1. if we were to latinise <Audry>, would it be <Audrius>?
> he_who_must_not_be_named wrote:
>
> >>French also shows the same contrast between vulgar forms
> >>-ry and erudite forms -ric (cf. Frery and Frederic.
> >>Romance languages developped femine forms adding -a, -etta
> >>or -ina.
>
> > so *aldarikas in french would be: [aldry]?
>
> <Audry> is the most common French reflex; <Autry> also
> occurs, and in the South <Aldric>, <Audric>, and <Autric>.
>
> > what would the frankish be?--->>[aldrech]?
>
> Probably West Frankish <Aldrich>.
> > i was also wondering about the high german one... would itwhattabout modern high german? altrisch? does this exist?
> > be plain [aldric]?
>
> Old High German <Altrih>, <Altrich>.
>
> > and the west saxon equivalent would be [ealdric]?3. is it the same for kentish and low german? and anglian? if it had a
>
> Yes, though so far as I can tell it isn't attested.
>4. but...like above, if we were to transform <aldrikaz> into english,
> > oh...regarding [aldrick] and [aldridge] being derived from
> > [aelfric] or [athelric], does this mean that english names
> > like aldrick, aldrich, and aldridge are not connected
> > whatsoever to the continental germanic [aldric] meaning
> > 'old-king'?
>
> That appears to be the case, apart from the fact that the
> second elements of OE <Ælfric> and <Æðelric> are cognate
> with the second element of the CG name.