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

At 7:26:30 AM on Wednesday, October 27, 2004, Richard
Wordingham wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:

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

>>> 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?

>> 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/).

> I think we'd get *A(u)ldritch /O:ldritS/. -ldr- certainly
> keeps some vowels short, as in child /tSaild/ ~ children
> /tSildr&n/. _alder_ < OE _alor_ supports my idea, but
> doesn't confirm it.

In general the combinations, like /ld/, that caused
lengthening of preceding short vowels in late OE (whence PDE
/tSaild/) did not do so when they were immediately followed
by a third consonant. <Child> ~ <children> is the usual
example, but another, this time for /nd/, is the different
histories of OE <hund> (late OE /hu:nd/) and <hundred>,
yielding respectively <hound> and <hundred>. Thus, in
<Aldric> we ought to have late OE /A/, whence ME /A/. I
believe that ME /A/ followed by /lC/ or /l#/ becomes /AU/ in
EME and /O/ in PDE (RP); examples are ME <talke(n)>, ME
/tAlk&(n)/, EME /tAUlk/, PDE /tOk/, and ME <smal> (/smAl/,
/smAUl/, /smOl/). This would indeed seem to yield
/OldrIc^/, probably spelled <Aldri(t)ch>.

Brian