Re[6]: [tied] Re: The OIT state of the art

At 3:29:48 PM on Friday, September 19, 2008, Arnaud Fournet
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

[...]

>> I know what the AHD says; ATILF/Trésor takes the same
>> view, which is the traditional one. But the fact that it
>> appears in a Latin form in the 6th century shows that
>> shows that the borrowing was not into OFr, but into Late
>> Latin or Gallo-Romance (unless there was a second, later
>> borrowing).

> What is your source for mariscalcus ??

> Cf.
> http://users.skynet.be/am016110/FILES/INSTITU/Marechaux.html
> Les affirmations, à ce sujet, d'un chroniqueur fabuliste
> (Jean d'Outremeuse), ne peuvent prévaloir contre les dires
> des anciens historiens ni contre les documents
> authentiques dont aucun ne mentionne le mot mariscalcus
> antérieurement au XIIIe siècle.

> The word "mariscalcus" according to this site is not
> attested until the XIII century !!

The online OED s.v. <marshal>; this is in the part of the
dictionary that's been brought up to date in the last few
years, so it's quite possible that the editors had access to
more information than was available to the editors of older
sources. (In case you don't know, the editors of the OED
are in the process of producing a completely revised 3rd
edition. They started with the letter <M> and have now done
<M> through <Q> and a small part of <R>. They're also
adding words and senses throughout the dictionary.)

In any case, your source is clearly mistaken: Latham's
Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish
Sources, a standard reference, shows <mariscalcus> ca.1080
and <marescalcus> 1086 and has several other citations
earlier than the 13th century. (The sources aren't
identified, but that 1086 citation is almost certainly from
Domesday Book; at any rate an <Alueredus marescalcus> does
appear in DB, as does a <Rogero marescalco>.)

Brian