From: tgpedersen
Message: 50766
Date: 2007-12-08
>The thing you wanted avoid here was a derivation from Wear, right? Do
> >>>>>> 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).Previously unrecorded survivals of words from lower registers of the
>
> >>> 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 EnglishThat's what I meant. Placenames in *(h)wa- having variants in *kwa-
> >>> 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.