GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-03 > 1046996745


From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: Adelaide, sister or half-sister to William I
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:25:45 GMT
References: <b3oqu1$jc8$1@venus.btinternet.com> <b3vpeo$k3b$1@knossos.btinternet.com> <GoU8a.188827$K71.111037@news1.central.cox.net> <3E642102.1050901@interfold.com> <mFn9a.203006$K71.38346@news1.central.cox.net> <3E66275A.3010008@interfold.com> <6Pz9a.208652$K71.70322@news1.central.cox.net>


In article <6Pz9a.208652$>,
"Phil Moody" <> wrote:

>"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>> While at first look it would seem to be so, this is not the case.
>> Aeliz is not liz, but comes from Adelais through the loss of
>> the 'd'. (In this sense, if you are looking for an Anglo-Saxon
>> paralel, it is like Aelmar, which derives from thelmr, with an
>> intermediate of Agelmar, where the g is pronounced like a modern
>> 'y'.) Thus Aeliz has three sylables A'-el-iz.
>
>PLM: While this theory is reasonable, which is why it has been accepted as
>fact by so many; it does not mean it is true. I am assuming that the suffix
>"lais" is pronounced "Lay", and not "Liz"; so not only do you have to lose
>the "D" in the prefix, but the suffix would change quite markedly
>phonetically. For Adelais to be the root of all these names, then one is
>supposing that the names are Frankish in origin, and I find this to be a
>very narrow perspective. I am not an etymologist, but I intuitively feel
>that the conclusion is flawed concerning the derivations of these names; so
>I still harbor my doubts.

Actually, the original form of the name is Adal-childis, and it is
attested in Continental (probably Frankish) sources as early as the
sixth century, according to Dunking & Gosling's _New American Dictionary
of Baby Names_ (Signet, 1985), which, despite its dumbed-down title, is
the best mass-market etymological name dictionary I've seen currently on
sale. At any rate, you can also trace many variants of this name in
source compendia such as the _Polyptich of Irminon_ (beginning of the
9th century, Paris region) or the various _Libri memoriales_ of the
tenth-century Rhineland. The variants of this name in French sources
from the ninth through twelfth centuries certainly confirms the
progression Todd has outlined, which is essentially common knowledge in
philological circles.

>> The origins of the biblical Elizabeth are entirely distinct, the
>> similarity being solely coincidental. As the A represents the
>> stressed sylable in Aeliz, it is unlikely to be lost. (Elmer
>> might be an exception, but I am not fammiliar enough with the
>> intermediates to know whether it derives directly from Aelmar
>> through the dropping of the initial A, or if there was an Almer
>> intermediate, the A then morphing into an E. There are 18th
>> century American examples of this A -> E morph happening to
>> Alice, which can appear as Ellis.)
>
>PLM: The most obvious example that springs to mind is the name Ethel. Can
>there be any doubt that this name derives from thel? I am not saying it is
>a common occurance, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Ethel is a 19th-century invention, shortened from several old
Anglo-Saxon names then in vogue in England, including Etheldreda and
Ethelberta. According to Dunking & Gosling (who are probably following
E. G. Withycombe's _Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names_)
'Ethel' first appears in 1842. The 'AE' ligature (actually a separate
letter, an ash, in OE) had already shifted to 'E' in these longer names
(Etheldreda, etc.) long before the diminutive 'Ethel' made its
appearance.

But anyhow, what were you all originally discussing?

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

This thread: