Re: Cyninglic (was: RE: Runes (was: Re: RV: Old English))
| From: | Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, March 31, 2000, 18:17 |
|---|
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:53:36 +0200, BP Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
>At 03:40 31.3.2000 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>
>>What would modern English reflexes of _Cyninglic_ and _Þéodenlic_
>>be? Is _king_ regularly from _cyning_, so _Kingly_ (boringly), or
>>might we instead have something like _Kinningly_?
>
>Reasonably regular, just as Old Scandinavian _konungr_ becomes _kung_ or
>_kong(e)_.
>Nobody knows how old the shortened forms are, since they might well have
>existed without being used in the formal context of writing.
Anyway, in both cases the development is not perfectly regular. So a form
like Kinningly might persist somehow.
Besides, the loss of the final consonant -c is not perfectly
regular either. It might have been voiced instead: Se Kinninglidge or
something.
>
>Since _þeow_ becomes _thief_ i guess _þéodenlic_ would be _thied_.
_thief_ < _þéof_, and the modern spelling is somewhat irregular.
_þéodenlic_ could become Theedenly (or Theedenlidge).
Basilius