Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:DJlvj.2349$g81.902@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:m9usj.7673$OU5.4882@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:IaGrj.6313$OU5.705@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You have neglected the fact that I usually do, and for this
>>>> generality, no citation is possible, except you research the A. Sax
>>>> for Strat. Was that your intent? There seem to be 5 definitions of
>>>> STRAT which are old words;
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Prove what? You are rather faint, I find. There is no proof of
>> anything ever except people agree on what consitutes a proof. Did you
>> mean, I should cite the meanings given for 'Strat'?
>>
>> You see, whatever I say has no consequence to you, and these requests
>> for proof are jejeune stalls on usenet about what you don't know - or
>> unwilling to admit. Let us see what happens to your understand if it
>> becomes an informed one:-
>>
>> (1) to stop; to hinder
>> (2) to splash with mud [Devon]
>> (3) to bring forth young prematurely, applied to beasts [Cornwall]
>> (4) to dash in pieces [West]
>> (5) a blow {Somerset]
>>
>> Now - do some work, and validate these references, to their veracity,
>> but also to the context in which I wrote - otherwise you may appear
>> to have more opinion than knowledge, which is a perilous stance, neh?
>
> I can't validate these "references", because you have failed to cite
your 
> source.

James Orchard Halliwell - Surely you heard of him? How can you talk of 
medieval words and not know Halliwell? I don't mean 'heard of'.

But if not try a google, and the library will /not/ likely have his 
dictionary on Archaic Words - but persevere, since it is much more 
illustrative of Middle-English and earlier, than than the fatuous OED,
which 
your library will have, but which will omit many references and citations 
wherever available, often chosing a recent one, rather than the earliest 
one.

> It is pointless to speculate, but you seem to be citing a dialect 
> dictionary of Modern English.

Let you be pointlessly speculating at your own expense at whatever 'seems'

to you, the person asks who does not know! These words were already rare
in 
1800, and I think that cannot be your 'modern English', whatever that
phrase 
may mean.

And I am not mean! I am instead informed - do not intend any fight with 
anyone for its own sake - except that there are such levels of
appreciation 
here, and if you too are a long-time denizen of usenet, you will have
become 
used to the least of them, which is understandable!

But common references and assurances are not illustrative nor encouraging
of 
research into any subject, since those who know much doubt much - this is 
especially true wherever there is reliance on only written histories, and
no 
other semiotic references - and is sometimes termed 'the rage of the 
librarians'.

Anon.

Phil Innes



> John Briggs
>
>