Dear Keith,
Could you give a bit more detail about Kelly's argument? I don't have the book, but I don't see how a dative plural horscum "at the horses" could be taken as a place-name.
Carole
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:08:08 +0100
Subject: [EPNL] X ≠ X
In Charters of Bath and Wells (OUP 2007) Susan Kelly wants to argue on p 117 that horscum in Horsecombe Vale (Somerset, ST 755 618) is not Horsecombe, because one is a dative plural, and the other a -cumb name. In such cases should not common sense take precedence, and some way be found around the linguistic difficulty (cf. Acomb, a dat. pl.)? It reminds me of Margaret Gelling arguing that croh hamme in Crookham (Berkshire) is not Crookham.
Keith
PS: some typos in the book:
p. v: typonymists (unless a cross between typologists and toponymists is meant); Honarary.
p. 269: index entry for (ge)hæg is mangled, with a missing closing quote and consequent uncertainty as to what the "?" applies to.
*******************************************
Dr Carole Hough
Reader in English Language
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
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
|