Bear in mind though that in modern English spelling, Ethel- is often
used in names to represent Old English Æþel- / Æðel-. Even in Old
English texts, forms beginning with e may represent a short vowel
like the standard West Saxon æ, since these were confused in some
dialects. Very early West Saxon sometimes uses e with a hook under
it to represent the low front vowel that is later spelt æ. The
scribes used accent marks sometimes, but not consistently to mark
vowel length. So if you see an "Ethelric" it may well be the same
name as Æþelric. Only if Eþelric occured in a manuscript that
otherwise kept æ and e distinct would it suggest that this was the
OE equivalent of Uodalric, as opposed to the better attested Æþelric.
Anyway, if there was an OE name Wodric, the regular form in Gothic
would be *Wodareiks.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "irilaz" <irilaz@...> wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. It is good to know I was right
> with "Othalareiks", although till now I have not been sure about
> connection with "Athalareiks" and the similar problem in A-S
> (Ehtelric - Aethelric). I supposed these are two distinct names
> (Othalareiks/Ethelric - Athalareiks/Aethelric), but I just did not
> know enough to be sure. Thanks again!
> If I may just pose once more the question of possible Gothic
> of A-S Wodric - would that be Wódareiks or just Wóthreiks /or
> Wódreiks/? (Is there a change from "þ" to "d"? As far as "wóths"
> itself is concerned I have found both "wóths" and "wóds", so I am
> not sure about this one, nevertheless the genitive should