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

At 6:33:47 AM on Saturday, December 8, 2007, tgpedersen
wrote:

[...]

>> 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?

Lack of any reason to think so in the face of the evidence.
(And for all I know, there may even be something in the
historical record that would explain the recorded name
change.)

[...]

>> 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/33491

This one.

> Is this what you call 'dealt with'?

Yes. You've offered nothing remotely resembling a
compelling reason to discard the obvious inference from the
data.

Brian