From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 65608
Date: 2010-01-09
> The most generally accepted view of the origin of the nameIf I were to put my money on either possibility, it would be the 'seal'
> <Sjælland>, however, is that it has nothing to do with
> <sjæl> 'soul', <s(j)ø> 'sea', <land> 'land', or <lund>
> 'grove'. The ODan. form <Siâland> derives from a Common
> Gmc. form *<Selha+wundia-> that is composed of a word
> *<selha-> and a derivational ending *<wundia-> 'that is
> provided with, that resembles'. The word *<selha-> can be
> either of two different words: (a) one that corresponds to
> and means the same as Danish <sæl> 'seal', and (b) one
> that means 'furrow, incision, cut, notch'.
> It goes on to explain why (b) is generally preferred.Perhaps it _is_ simply *selxa-wunði: 'abounding in seals' with a little
>
> The idea is clear enough, but this does leave me with a
> couple of questions about the details. First, why *-ia- in
> *wundia-? The <-und> suffix that appears in a number of
> island names looks to me like the outcome of something like
> *-wnt-ih2 > *-wund-i: > *-undi > -und. Secondly, *selha-
> 'seal' is no problem, but is there any Gmc. evidence for
> *selha- 'furrow, cut'? OE has <sulh> 'a furrow, a gully',
> but that appears to be zero-grade (and athematic). Is this
> minor carelessness in a popular presentation, or am I
> missing something?