Re: auðaz? = o:ðaz? ?

From: Lisa
Message: 39189
Date: 2005-07-11

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> cf the Belgian towns
> Braine-l'Alleud/Eigenbrakel
> Braine-le-Comte/s'Gravenbrakel

So am I right in thinking it's substrate in PGmc?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> OE <éad> 'riches, prosperity, good fortune, happiness'; this
> is also the onomastic theme in such OE names as <Éadweard>,
> <Éadgár>, <Éada> etc.; the last is thus cognate with <Odo>.
> PGmc. *au > OE éa is regular.

GAH. I knew that but completely forgot it. Thank you.

> On the other side, OED2 mentions OSax <óðil>.
>
> I'm not sure that the Gothic is attested, but it's seen in
> Goth. <áudags> 'blessed' (cf. OE <éadig>). ON <auðr> goes
> with OHG <o:t>, OE <éad>, etc.

Ah. I wasn't [/ still am not =P ] sure if ON au always came from PGmc
au or o:.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> 1. Proto-Germanic *d and *ð are the same phoneme.

Allophones of a phoneme, you mean?

I was under the impression that PGmc had *ð (and *þ), which later/soon
changed in certain environments and in certain daughters to d. ?

Part of the reason why I was confused, I think, is that the link I
provided had *ð in some places and *d in other places. Oversight by
the author?

> 2. Onions gives the stem as *o:þ-, *aþ-, and regards the 'noble'
> meaning as coming from the same stem.

The same, huh? Interesting. Why the voicing in some daughters (and
seemingly in PGmc for *auðaz), then?

And why such a disconnect from 'noble' to 'inherited property'? This
makes me wonder if it is indeed a separate thing.

> 3. The OE form is attested as <oeþel> as well as _e:þel_, so the vowel
> here is an umlaut of *o:. The noun suffix shows a far bit of variation:

Ah. Would the OE <oeþel> have been pronounced /oeþel/?

> OE: -el, -la, -le, -ol, -l
> OS, OHG: -il, -al, -la
> ON: -al, -ill, -ull
>
> Gothic apparently only shows -ils, and Old Frisian -le.
>
> Given these forms, umlaut does not seem particularly predictable,
> though there should be a correlation with vowel while it survives.

I don't think I caught the reason for the -[V]l in the one version of
the word/noun. Could you explain?

> 4. Proto-Germanic *au > German au before labials, but not in other
> environments, e.g *auzon > German _Ohr_ 'ear'.

Ah, I see.


Thank you for all your help & input!