From: tgpedersen
Message: 50765
Date: 2007-12-08
>'There may be evidence in my favor that I don't know about'. You're
> 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.)
> [...]There is no compelling reason to discard steam trains either. They
>
> >> 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.