GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-03 > 1047004877


From: "Phil Moody" <>
Subject: Re: Adelaide, sister or half-sister to William I
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 02:41:17 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> <ntaylor-5588FB.19243706032003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>


"Nathaniel Taylor" wrote:

> 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.

PLM: Thank you for the clarification, and the sources, Nat. I can clearly
see I will have to dig much deeper before anyone begins to doubt the origin
of these names. I had not wanted to stray into the morass of Etymology, but
some study has now become a necessity:-)

> 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.

PLM: Thanks for clarifying this as well. I did not know when Ethel came into
use, but it does not really disprove my point; since Ethel was based on
names which had originally derived from , and morphed into words beginning
with the letter "E", which was my point.

> But anyhow, what were you all originally discussing?

PLM: I think Todd adequetly explained the purpose of this line of reasoning;
which my skepticism probably added more dialogue than was necessary:-) Let
me take this opportunity to say that I am looking forward to your analysis
of what Barrow has to say on these problems! Hopefully we can resolve one or
more of the problematic issues concerning Adelaide's lineage and
descendants:-)

(NB. Todd, I did not recieve this post from Nat on the list, nor your reply.
I had to come to SGM to find them. I have only recieve 1 of the 4 posts in
this thread on list as well: "Enguerrand I de Ponthieu and Adele of
Holland/Adelvie of Guines." I posted to Gen-Med last night a reply to your
"Recent gateway problems" post, describing a thread I started called
"Matilda Secunda, part deux", of which only one of the 6 posts made through
to SGM. I will post this again from SGM, under the "Recent gateway
problems"; so you can properly get it this time:-)

Best Wishes,
Phil


"Nathaniel Taylor" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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: