Re: [tied] Re: Torsten's theory reviewed
- At 5:41:25 AM on Thursday, September 30, 2010, Torsten wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"[...]
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>> At 6:19:44 AM on Sunday, September 26, 2010, Torsten wrote:
>>> But "arogis deda / alagu þleuba dedun" with twoOf course it can. In a linguistic context 'pleonastic'
>>> sparate(?) meanings of "do" sounds contrived.
>> Not separate meanings; the first instance is (on this
>> reading) merely pleonastic.
> Can't be, it's the same verb
means '[i]nvolving the use of words which are redundant, in
that they merely repeat information already expressed
elsewhere' (Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in
Linguistics). I could also have said 'redundant'.
>>> Now if the scrabble rules allow me to subtract aYou missed the point. What is actually there is <Arogisd>;
>>> consonant, I think I'll pick a -t- instead of an -l-.
>> They don't allow you to do so arbitrarily. Both <Gis-> and
>> <-gis> are very well attested Gmc. name themes; <-gist> is
>> not. Moreover, there was a fairly common <l>-suffix by
>> which themes could be extended, so it would not be very
>> surprising if an inherent final <-l> were sometimes lost.
>> For that matter, it's not clear that anything has to be
>> lost: the 'arrow-shaft, beam, staff' word may be an <-l>
>> diminutive of an ablaut variant of the 'spear' word, in
>> which case the theme *gīsa- may simply continue the variant
>>> Put differently, it might be plausible, but so is the
>>> -gist interpretation, given the facts at hand.
>> A rune carver's error for an unattested <Arogast>
> Your claim. You forget the 'd' is actually there.
if this represents unattested <Arogast>, both the <i> and
the <d> require explanation. The <d> can be explained as
the result of confusion following the High German sound
shift, but the <i> remains an error.
>> does not seem to me as plausible as a reading that usesI don't really care one way or the other. However, the word
>> only attested elements. Support for a genuine <-gist>
>> theme is nil.
> You wish.
in 'Beowulf' certainly doesn't offer any such support, and
not just because it doesn't appear there as a name theme.
Whether that <gist> represents <giest> 'guest' or <gæ:st>
'spirit', the form is OE, and so far as I can tell not
standard for any OE dialect. The PGmc. sources are *gastiz
and *gaistaz, respectively, neither of which can be expected
to produce <gist> in a southern German context.
- At 9:00:13 AM on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, Torsten wrote:
> I don't want to open this thread again; I'm adding thisHarrison & Harrison, _Surnames of the United Kingdom_, is
> posting to the tree since I found an authoritative quote
> on the subject, and I'd like to be able to locate that
> quote in the future.
> And it is:
> Harrison & Harrison
> Surnames of the United Kingdom:
> a concise etymological dictionary
not authoritative. It is in fact somewhat notorious for
etymologizing on the modern forms of surnames, and this
entry is an example. <Pendegast> is from <Prendergast>, the
name of a village and parish in Pembrokeshire and, as
<Prenderguest>, of what is now a farm in Berwickshire; early
instances of the byname include <de Prendergat'> 1225, <de
Prendrogest> 1354, <de Prendergest> ~1170, ~1240, 1325, and
<de Prendregast> 1296. The Scottish place-name is
associated at an early date with an Anglo-Norman family who
may have brought it from Wales. The etymology is unknown,
but the name is apparently P-Celtic, and the first element
may be <pren> 'tree'.