Re: [tied] Re: -leben/-lev/-löv and -ung-

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 50761
Date: 2007-12-08

At 6:18:26 AM on Saturday, December 8, 2007, tgpedersen
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 4:45:34 AM on Friday, December 7, 2007, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> At 5:58:57 AM on Thursday, December 6, 2007, tgpedersen
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
>>>>> <gabaroo6958@> wrote:

>>>>>> So, any relation to George? The one from Wassa's ton?

>>>>> Hard to say.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_Tyne_and_Wear

>>>>> This article roots for *hwæs- but doesn't document the
>>>>> h-; instead it cites a Wasindone from 1096.

>>>> The <Washington> in Tyne and Wear is 'the estate called
>>>> after Hwæssa', from OE <Hwæssingtûn>. Forms:

>>>> Wessint', Wessinton ~1170x80
>>>> Wessington('),-yng- 1183[~1320], 1196x1215-1473
>>>> Wesshyngton, -yng- 1411-1556

>>>> Wassinton' 1211
>>>> Wassington, -yng- 1382, 1418
>>>> Wasshin(g)ton 1406
>>>> Washington 1581-

>>>> Quessigton' 1280
>>>> Quessigton' ~1310
>>>> Whessyngton 1475, 1548
>>>> Qwassyngton 1388x1406
>>>> Whassington, -yng- 1350-70

>>>> It's the third group that shows that the base
>>>> anthroponym must have been <Hwæssa> rather than <Wassa>
>>>> (see below). Victor Watts notes that the first two
>>>> groups seem to have been influenced by OE <wæsse> 'a
>>>> wet place, a swamp, a marsh', which however does not at
>>>> all fit the topography.

>>> According to the Wikipedia article, some disagree:

>>> "A second potential Anglo-Saxon origin, could be from
>>> Old English wæsc "to wash" + -inga 'people of' + du:n
>>> "hill" (i.e. people of the hill by the stream). This
>>> theory originates from its proximity to the Wear. This
>>> origin could possible be shown in an apparent record of
>>> the name as Wasindone from 1096."

>> I'll take Victor Watts over an unsourced Wikipedia
>> assertion any day. In this case there isn't even a source
>> given for the alleged <Wasindone> 1196, which is
>> mentioned neither by Watts nor by Ekwall. Moreover, even
>> if it is legitimate and does refer to the place in
>> question, it's clearly the odd one out.

> In what sense? It differs from the second group you cite
> only in having -s-. That can't be what you mean?

Why can't it? The pedigreed citations are unanimous on this
point (until you get to the modern form). In any case, it
also has on the face of it a different generic, <du:n>
instead of <tu:n>.

> Unless it indicates long vs. otherwise short vowel, but
> the root in Germanic is double, *was-/*wo:s- (< PPGerm.
> a/a: or o/o:).

>>>> The name <Hwæssa> is also seen in <Whessoe> (Durham).

>>> Odd. Especially since the the forms without k- or h- are
>>> the oldest.

>> You of all people have no business objecting to late
>> appearance of a more accurate representation of the
>> underlying form!

> I don't know what it is in me that brings the staff
> sergeant out in some people. What makes you think it is
> your business to tell me what my business is?

You don't see the irony of your objection? You're the one
who's forever appealing to unrecorded survivals to support
pet theories.

>>> Are there similar alternations in other English
>>> placenames

>> Yes.

>>> and if yes, do they occur in names of any particular
>>> type?

>> Not to my knowledge, but I've never looked into it.

> A few examples would be nice. The two so far have *(k)wa-

I assumed that that's what you meant by 'similar
alternations'. If you mean something else, you'll have to
be more specific.

Brian