From: Torsten
Message: 66974
Date: 2010-12-17
>(* facepalm *)
> 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.
> > Frankly, Brian, why don't you check your examples first,Zzzzz.
> > before your make grand statements about the gratuitousness
> > of proposals?
>
> I do. Why don't you learn how to evaluate evidence?
> [...]It's in the books, so it must be true.
>
> >>>> 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>:Stadtmauergrund? Stadtmauerdorf? Erh, inference ... ?
>
> >> 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. Ãlteste Namen der Siedlung sind die
> >> keltischen Bezeichnungen Radasbona, Ratasbona oder
> >> Ratisbona, daraus entstand die französische Benennung
> >> Regenburgs âRatisbonneâ. Der Namensursprung beruht auf zwei
> >> keltischen Wörtern: rate oder ratis âWallâ, âStadtmauerâ und
> >> bona âGründungâ oder âStadtâ.[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 *rÄto/Ä- '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(?)'.)
>