Re: Where and how developed die Jiddische Sproch

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 66970
Date: 2010-12-16

At 6:04:09 PM on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, Torsten wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>> At 7:45:19 PM on Thursday, November 18, 2010, Torsten wrote:

>> [...]

>>>> On the three names of that river route cf.
>>>> Kuhn
>>> ...
>>>> "The German Radantia (to river Main at Bamberg) was in
>>>> this way [various dialect forms adopted for separate
>>>> stretches] even divided into three parts. The two source
>>>> rivers are now named (Franconian and Swabian) Rezat, the
>>>> middle course Rednitz and the lower, from the entrance of
>>>> the river Pegnitz, Regnitz. The new units correponded to
>>>> natural river sections and therefore gave little cause
>>>> for objection. The form Regnitz may be taken symbolically
>>>> as a mix of Rednitz and Pegnitz, which join there and are
>>>> approximately of the same size. Rezat seems to have
>>>> originated from Reht-ratanze, the old name of the
>>>> Franconian Rezat (thus 810, but 786 Reth-ratenza). It is
>>>> probably the "right Radantia" (seen from down river), but
>>>> nonetheless a part of the unitary Radantia which has now
>>>> fallen into pieces".

>>>> Or from *radj- -> rad-/rag- (by phoneme adaptation)?

>> No such gratuitous hypothesis is necessary: the name has a
>> perfectly good etymology, and the change Rednitz > Regnitz
>> under the influence of <Pegnitz> is unobjectionable.

> You seem to be happy with it; good for you.

>> Regnitz: <Regentze> 1312, <Regnitz> 1348, <Regnicz> 1376,
>> <Regnitius ... fluvius vulgo Radiantia dictus> 1506.

> Alright, Radiantia? And a derivation from *radj- was
> gratuitous?

Yes.

> Frnkly, Brian, why don't you check your examples first,
> before your make grand statements about the gratuitousness
> of proposals?

I do. Why don't you learn how to evaluate evidence?

[...]

>>>> cf. the city's names in Orbis Latinus:
>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/Graesse/orblatr.html
>>>> 'Ratisbona, Ratispona, Radaspona, Radespona, Radisbona u.
>>>> -pona, Reginopolis, Regina (castra), Regnia,
>>>> Reginoburgum, Regino urbs, Raegina, Imbripolis
>>>> (Imbripolitanus), Tiberina, Tiberia, Tiburina, Tiburnia,
>>>> Hyatospolis, Hierapolis, Hiaspolis, Quadrata,
>>>> Reginopolis, Ratispolis, Regisburgium, Regensburg, Stadt,
>>>> Bayern (Oberpfalz).'

>>>> note the -d-/-g- alternation also here.

>> Because it had two fundamentally different names (plus a
>> number of fantastical nonce names).

> No, that's your proposal (actually someone else's).

It's the inference supported by the evidence.

>> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg>:

>> Regensburg ist eine der ältesten Städte in Deutschland. Im
>> Laufe der Jahrhunderte ist Regensburg mit einer Vielzahl von
>> Namen bedacht worden. Das weist auf die reichhaltige
>> Geschichte hin. Älteste Namen der Siedlung sind die
>> keltischen Bezeichnungen Radasbona, Ratasbona oder
>> Ratisbona, daraus entstand die französische Benennung
>> Regenburgs „Ratisbonne“. Der Namensursprung beruht auf zwei
>> keltischen Wörtern: rate oder ratis „Wall“, „Stadtmauer“ und
>> bona „Gründung“ oder „Stadt“.[2]

> Thus 'Stadtmauerstadt'? What's the point of calling you
> city that?

To distinguish it from towns without walls, or because it
had particularly notable or impressive walls, obviously.
Moreover, the first element is actually *rāto/ā- 'earthwork,
fortification' (OIr <ráth> 'earthwork'), so even if the
second element is 'town, village', which seems to be less
certain than the article implies, the actual sense is more
like 'fortified town'. (Falileyev (2007) says that while
the second element is uncertain, it may be 'base,
foundation; village(?)'.)

Brian