[tied] Re: -leben/-lev/-löv and -ung-

> >>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/50231
>
> >>> Where did 'replace' come from?
>
> >> The data.
>
> > Could you be more specific? A quote would help.
>
> The data were given in Nr. 50231. If I remember correctly,
> what I wrote there was a fairly close paraphrase/translation
> of the original French.
>

That would be:
'The original name, a derivative of the masculine personal
name <Wacho>, can be seen in the forms <Wachonevillare> 8th
c., <Vuachimvillare in pago Bononiensi> 954, and
<Wachunvillers> 954. This was subsequently replaced by
Latin <vastum>, OFr <gast> 'desolate, ravaged': <Wastum>
1107, <Guastum> 12th c., <Wast> 12th c.'

So why can't the *vast- name not be original, but undocumented, here?

> >>> Udolph, p. 159, in the list of -ing/-ung names: 'mit
> >>> ahd. waso "Rasen" ist Wasungen bei Meiningen, 874
> >>> Uuasunga, zu verbinden'.
>
> >> I've no quarrel with this. It was the gratuitous inclusion
> >> of <gueux> to which I objected.
>
> > I can't agree with that. You argued, successfully, against
> > the inclusion of various French placenames (and I can't
> > see what was gratuitous in me proposing them for that,
>
> Nothing; 'gratuitous' here referred only to the inclusion of
> <gueux> in the your recent post that started this subthread,
> not to anything in the previous discussion.
>
> > you used better sources than were available to me at the
> > time, that's normal procedure); I don't recall you having
> > any argument against the inclusion of the appellative
> > gueux?
>
> I didn't bother: Frank Verhoft dealt with it better than I
> could have done. I have no problem with the obvious
> interpretation of the data, namely, that <gueux> is a
> borrowing of MDu. <guit>.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/33516
'
<<<By assuming that *was-, *wos- was not a Germanic root but
belonged to a substrate that was common to the present Germanic-
speaking and French-speaking areas, and that *wos- therefore was
loaned into French early enough that it was subject to the rules /o/

> /ö/, cf. Latin <coda> > French <queue>.

That's a lot of speculation...
'

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/33491
'
No doubt. But it was (and still is) the line *wos->gueux>geus i have
probs with (less probs with Du guit > Fr gueux > Du geus; no
problems with Fr. gueux > Du geus). As for French, the oldest
attestation for gueux (or related forms gueuse) is as late as the
_XVIth_ century. How do you account for that, if you want to
connect 'gueux' to *wos? Furthermore, how would you explain the
sound represented by Fr. <eu> in connection with Gmc. *o, while
Du <ui> is easily mixed up with <eu>, at least by modern
francophones.
'
Lat. coda > French queue, as I mentioned.

Is this what you call 'dealt with'?


Torsten