Dear Keith,
It is customary in English-language publications to use anglicised forms of
names, e.g. Munich rather than München, so I don't think there is any
difficulty with Lubeck.
As regards Trunch, your first option is ingenious, but hardly plausible. The
second option is by far the more obvious meaning, and therefore surely the
one intended.
Carole
********************************************
Dr Carole Hough
Reader, Department of English Language
School of English and Scottish Language and Literature (SESLL)
University of Glasgow
12 University Gardens
Glasgow G12 8QQ
Scotland UK
Tel. +44 (0)141 330 4566
Fax. +44 (0)141 330 3531
http:/www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL.EngLang
-----Original Message-----
From: The English Place-Name List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Keith Briggs
Sent: 06 December 2004 09:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [EPNL] PN Norfolk, part 3 - two queries
I refer to Karl Inge Sandred, PN Norfolk, part 3 (2002).
p 10: "Lubeck": was "Lübeck" meant?
p 46: Trunch: "A name generally considered to be of Celtic origin. ... If it
is not transferred [from Le Tronchet], Ekwall says, it is no doubt formed
from
Celtic elements in England. This explanation seems still to be accepted."
Does the last sentence mean:
1. This explanation seems yet to be accepted.
or
2. This explanation still seems to be accepted (as it was before).
?
The first option seems to me to be more likely to be the intended one, but
this interpretation conflicts with the first sentence of the entry.
Keith
|