Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Chess One wrote:
>
>>> It is interesting to also note the name of Stratford; is the 'Strat'
>>> A. Sax or Latinate?
>>>
>>> in A. Sax it means muddy ~ muddy crossing
>>> and in Latin [f. Strata] a paved or metalled road
>>
>> "Straet" is Old English for 'Roman road'.
>
> Yes. But it has another meaning! It is a verb, 'to throw mud'. And may
> indeed have other meanings - and the point of mentioning them is
> examine which is which.

You have neglected your own prescriptions and not given any citations.

>>> then there is the ford business, which is from Fford, and Welsh for
>>> river or stream crossing.
>>
>> No, that would be "rhyd" - "ford" is Old English (from West
>> Germanic). They are (somewhat distant) cognates.
>
> Rhyd is rather late.

What are you talking about? You mentioned "Welsh for river or stream 
crossing" - which is "rhyd".

> And Ford in A. Sax means 'to sell', to afford!

You know, if you don't give any reference for that, people will think you 
have just made it up...

>>> Then this Ellis fellow, a good Cornish name. 'Eels"? [Chaucer] who
>>> also used Elle with the same meaning. Lest it is A. Sax by origin or
>>> incor****ation;-
>>
>> No, "Ellis" is Middle English for 'Elias'. Hence the
>> diminutive:"Eliot".
>
> How interesting to meet such solid and singular opinions.

Look in  few reference books, and they won't come as such a surprise. For 
the avoidance of doubt, they are not *my* opinions.

> But in your world is middle-English before or after A. Sax.? Since if 
> Chaucer the atavist notes an A. Sax pronoun, then it can be ALSO used 
> later, but is no origin.

I know I am going to regret this, but here goes: Old English is the
English 
language as spoken up to 1066. Middle English is the English language
spoken 
from 1066 to 1500. Modern English is the English language spoken since
1500.

>> Look, I realise that you probably consider this cheating, but had you
>> considered that I am actually checking my replies against the
>> standard reference works, whereas you just make things up?
>
> What standard reference works? You see, I give citations, not just to
> collective works, but to individual works, editions, page numbers...

This time you really haven't.

>> It makes the whole exchange a bit one-sided...
>
> Indeed. Perhaps you should declare victory and leave? Or perhaps you
> can be less certain of the only thing that words can mean, and join
> the human race?

I suppose I would be less certain of what words meant if I didn't use 
dictionaries, but the 'human race' seems to rely on these crutches...
-- 
John Briggs