Re: [tied] Re: aldric, luis, aldrin = etymology?

On 04-10-27 06:14, he_who_must_not_be_named wrote:

> 1. if we were to latinise <Audry>, would it be <Audrius>?
> and i would like to see the evolution from frankish <aldrich> to mod.
> french <audry>.. i was wondering about old french and middle french...
> auldery, audery, audericus??? was the frankish name latinised first
> before changing into audry/autry/audric? help please again.

Aldericus, just like Baudouin = Baldwin (Bealdwine) = Balduinus.
Cf. St. Aldric = St. Audry = Sanctus Aldericus (died 841, before Old
French preconsonantal /l/ was vocalised).

> 3. is it the same for kentish and low german? and anglian? if it had a
> cognate in west saxon, i guess it would be possible to have a
> middle/new english version, right? -->auldric? :) serious help on this
> one.

The historical roots of Modern Standard English(es) are more Anglian
(East Midland) than West Saxon. In other words, "standard" (Æþelwoldian)
Late West Saxon, despite its historical importance, is _not_ the
direct ancestor of the modern standard varieties. That's why the
standard forms of today are <sold, told, bold, old> rather than "seald,
teald" etc. (to rhyme with <field>); the modern vowel (/oU/ ~ /&U/)
reflects Middle English /O:/, which in turn reflects OE /a:/ from
Anglian /a/ regularly lengthened in this environment (before /ld/).

Piotr