From: A.
Message: 59726
Date: 2008-08-02
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> > So what I am wondering is whether there is any way to
> > reconstruct an earlier Gmc/Proto-Gmc form of the name,
> > based upon the derivations produced (Old Saxon Saxnote as
> > well as the English Seaxneat, Seaxnete, Seaxnet)
>
> What you actually have are OSax <Saxno:te> in a context
> that apparently makes it a dative singular, so the
> nominative is <Saxno:t>, and OE <Seaxne:at>. Those are
> consistent with a PGmc a-stem *sahsa-nautaz.
So the only Gmc root which could give both Old Saxon Saxno:te and OE
Seaxne:at - is nautaz?
> > In "Anglo-Saxon England", edited by Michael Lapidge:
> > "The names Seaxnetingas (and also the name 'Saxones')
> > contains an element referring to a knife or blade. 'Neat'
> > is a substantive derived from the adverb 'neotan' -to be
> > of use - and is related to the word for need.
>
> Not so far as I know. The 'be of use' words are from PIE
> *neud- 'to make use of, enjoy', while <need> is apparently
> from an extension (by *-ti-) of PIE *neh2u- 'related to
> death'.
I follow.
> > It may also mean dependent, sometimes in the sense of
> > vassal. Seaxnet, the ancestral god of the dynasty, may be
> > translated as 'blade need'."
>
> If it's *-nautaz, it'll be kin to ON <nautr> 'a mate, a
> fellow; the giver of a gift; the gift itself' and OE
> <(ge)ne:at> 'companion, follower, tenant', not English
> <need>; the sense would presumably be something like
> 'sword-mate, sword-companion'.
So my only remaining question is how certain this etymology is - is
it fairly straight forward or is there a lot of room for debate?
Mayn thanks!
Sincerely,
Aydan