Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Chess One wrote:
> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:tbIvj.4656$582.869@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> Well, Halliwell's dictionary was first published in 1850.  You
>>>> would be better off consulting Wright's "English Dialect
>>>> Dictionary".
>>>
>>> Is that the one abandoned at 'c' or 'd'?
>>
>> No - but you'll have to explain what you are talking about.
>
> You referenced another source, the one abandoned at letter c or d? Do
> you not know your own source? What did it have to say, and I think
> 'no' is an innapreciable comment.

"innapreciable" isn't a word.  Joseph Wright's "English Dialect
Dictionary" 
was completed in 1905. (It's not my fault if you only have one volume... 
Volume 1, A-C (1898) or one of the parts of Volume 2: Da-Dinner, 
Dinnick-Ezob, Fa-Fly-By-Sky, Flyer-Gyver. (1899))

>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> "Modern English" is the language since 1500.
>>>
>>> So, return to your own issue, merrily burried here - what was it
>>> again?
>>
>> You were trying to claim that "Stratford" meant 'muddy crossing',
>
> which it does in Anglo Saxon.

It doesn't - and the language is called Old English.

>> and I pointed out that it actually means 'ford by which a Roman road
>> crosses a River' - "straet" being Old English for 'Roman road'.
>
> It means 'metalled road'

Maybe so, but it specifically means 'Roman road'.

>> Had your wits been less disordered, you would have tried to find an
>> example that was not on a Roman road...
>
> And the result of this conversation is that there are two
> possibilities; to take from the Roman, or to take the Saxon from the
> Anglo Saxon town. And I do not insist I am right, but venture an
> alternate.

You are venturing out of total ignorance.  I can point to the relevant 
scholar****p.

> Is this in itself such a crime as to be accused of one's wits being
> astray, when considering another prospect for the placename?

It is, when you are doing so out of ignorance.  "Considering prospects for

placenames" requires considerable scholar****p.

> I cannot prove that it means muddy crossing any more than you can
> prove it is a Latinate form.
>
> What is odd about you, Mr, Briggs, is that you infer you can.

You inferred what I implied. Forget 'Latinate'  - these are two words in
the 
(Old) English language. Oh, and I can point to scholarly works.
-- 
John Briggs