On 22 Jan 2019, at 17:10, Richard Coates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes, OK.

 

Richard

 

From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Dougherty
Sent: 22 January 2019 16:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EPNL] London/Londinium

 

 

Thank you Richard

 

That was very helpful. 

 

If I understand you correctly, to borrow your Latin parallel, *donjos started out as a second declension noun with the nominative plural - *donjoi but then, as the vowel inflections dropped away leading to a lack of distinction between singular and plural, it adopted a third declension plural form *donjones, the last syllable of which would probably not have been lost, at least, until the early sixth century?

 

It follows from this that if, which is uncertain, the third declension form was in use in the mid first century AD or earlier (and overlooking for now the question of the thematic vowel on the first element), the name would have been Lon(g)doniones, not Lon(g)donion.

 

Latin -ium endings generally corresponded to Greek neuter -ion endings and did not systematically correspond in a similar way with Celtic languages and since no -ion ending was possible in this instance, the Romans would not have attached a corresponding -ium ending. Therefore, Lon(g)donion and thereby Londinium cannot be derived from any compound with *donion as the second element? My solution is thus philologically impossible.

 

Is that a reasonable summary?

Stephen

On 22 Jan 2019, at 09:44, Richard Coates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Hi Stephen

 

I’ll be fairly brief. In your message you say:

 

My aim was to play by the same rules, but to see if another solution works within those rules. Perhaps the virtue (or otherwise) of the “L(l)on(g) dynion/donjon" solution is its simplicity, but, of course, it has to be linguistically possible. My very recently acquired and very limited understanding of current linguistic theory is that the common Britonnic for London was Londinion from *Londonjon and also that the genitive plural of *donjo-  (the proposed ancestor of dyn/dynion) was *donjon. If this is the case, is there any linguistic reason why we must rule out *donjon as a suffix? I don’t understand why that part of the proposal is outside the existing framework of understanding. I thought it was within the existing framework and no-one has satisfactorily explained why it is not. You suggested the form would be "something like Longodoniones with the British plural suffix -es or an equivalent". I don’t see why the (presumably) nominative plural “-es” would be added to the genitive plural suffix in *donjon.

 

This reveals all I would need to say. You haven’t understood British stem-and-suffix structure. I don’t know where you get the idea that *donjon was genitive. 

 

In what I said when I first replied to your etymological suggestion I said something misleading because I left out some stages in the argument to simplify, so I correct it here.

 

*donjo- belonged to the class of Celtic nouns which originally formed a nominative plural in -i:. Compare Latin dominus/domini. It came to form a plural in -jon (which was originally a property of nouns in another class comparable to Latin natio/nationes in which it was a final vowel of the stem rather than part of the number inflection itself). This was because the Brittonic change by which the final (usually inflexional) syllable of British words was dropped often had the effect of making the singular and plural of nouns identical unless the original -i: suffix had caused umlaut of the stem vowel. So a new element borrowed from the class corresponding to natio was drafted in for many nouns. That same loss of final syllables removed the -es plural suffix from -jones leaving the -jon to be interpreted as a plural suffix from then on.

 

In British Celtic, IF *donjo- had already formed a plural in the new style (and you would have to show that that was plausible at that date), it would have been *donjon- with the -es still attached, maybe till the early 6^th century. The syllable -ion wouldn’t have been final at that period. It would not therefore have been susceptible to replacement by Latin final -ium because the Celtic and Latin structures did not correspond in a systematic way like the one that allowed Greek neuters in -on to be systematically latinized with neuter -um. Your solution is therefore not philologically possible.

 

The -on has nothing to do with genitive case. It was an original marker of -n stem nouns, to which case suffixes were attached. Post-British Celtic never had cases at all (with a few fossilized exceptions) because the loss of final syllables removed any suffixes.

 

This is simplified a bit, and if I have made any crass mistakes (I am not a Celticist) then I hope Celticists will correct me. I will be happy to stand corrected.

 

Richard

 

From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Dougherty
Sent: 21 January 2019 21:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EPNL] London/Londinium

 

Hi Richard

 

Sorry for the late reply. I’ll continue in the same vein.

BUT IT HAS TO BE SHOWN EITHER THAT ANY SOLUTIONS ALLOWED TO LIE ON THE TABLE ARE TENABLE WITHIN AN EXISTING FRAMEWORK OF UNDERSTANDING, 

 

Agreed. I came onto the list to see if this idea was feasible within the existing framework. Was it a possible solution or one that was almost certainly wrong?. Had it been suggested and dismissed before? Was it so completely wrong that it would not have been considered by any informed person or had it just not occurred to anyone?

 

OR THAT THAT FRAMEWORK ITSELF SHOULD BE REJECTED. 

 

I suppose existing frameworks might be improved rather than rejected, but being unfamiliar with the existing framework, I was and still am in no position to improve it , let alone reject it and it is not and was not my intention to do so. 

 

I THINK YOU WANT TO PROPOSE A SOLUTION THAT REJECTS THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF HOW LANGUAGES CHANGE, AND HOW CELTIC IN PARTICULAR HAS CHANGED, BUT YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN WHY IT SHOULD BE REJECTED OR WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF REJECTING IT WOULD BE FOR CELTIC IN GENERAL, I.E. BEYOND THE PARTICULAR CASE OF LONDINIUM. 

 

No. I want the exact opposite. I hoped it would fit in with what is understood about the languages of the time. I’m unclear why you think this. 

(New theories should be challenged but not forbidden … I certainly have neither the inclination nor the knowhow to attempt to disprove your theory. ) NO SANE PERSON WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOUR BROAD POSITION (FIRST SENTENCE). I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MY THEORY" (YOU MEAN ABOUT LONDINIUM IN PARTICULAR OR HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS IN GENERAL?) BUT IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE PROPONENT OF ANY NEW THEORY TO SHOW WHY IT'S AT LEAST AS GOOD AS THOSE ON THE TABLE. PLEASE DO SUGGEST NEW SOLUTIONS FOR PARTICULAR NAMES, BUT, TO REPEAT MYSELF, PLAY THE SAME GAME AS THOSE WHO PROPOSED THE OLDER ONES OR SHOW WHY THE RULES THEY WORKED BY COULD BE WRONG. (MORE BELOW.)

 

I meant about Londonium in particular. My aim was to play by the same rules, but to see if another solution works within those rules. Perhaps the virtue (or otherwise) of the “L(l)on(g) dynion/donjon" solution is its simplicity, but, of course, it has to be linguistically possible. My very recently acquired and very limited understanding of current linguistic theory is that the common Britonnic for London was Londinion from *Londonjon and also that the genitive plural of *donjo-  (the proposed ancestor of dyn/dynion) was *donjon. If this is the case, is there any linguistic reason why we must rule out *donjon as a suffix? I don’t understand why that part of the proposal is outside the existing framework of understanding. I thought it was within the existing framework and no-one has satisfactorily explained why it is not. You suggested the form would be "something like Longodoniones with the British plural suffix -es or an equivalent". I don’t see why the (presumably) nominative plural “-es” would be added to the genitive plural suffix in *donjon. Could you explain this? 

 

I think I understand your point about the thematic vowel on the first element giving us “longo-" (or longa?) and therefore *Longodonium. This would also help to make sense of Guto’s oft-repeated dogma that because Latin had an -ng sound, it would have been transcribed, although he later admitted there could be some "phonetic credibility" in the idea that the nasal might have been "assimilated ito the /d/“. It would not of course be readily assimilated to the thematic vowel and the ‘-ng in Longodonion would have been easily picked up by a Roman scribe. However, is it not possible that the thematic vowel might have been dropped in every day speech, leading to the nasal being assimilated to the /d/?  This would leave us with Londonjon. Then if, as i think you have suggested, there is a back vowel in the second ‘o’, would that not give us a sound closer to Londinion, with “donion/dinion” being a genitive of donjo-, Lon' representing llong or longa and the name therefore meaning Shipmen’s or Shipfolk’s, much as we say Tesco’s or St Peter’s? I do feel I’m trying to play the game here.

 

(I also don’t see why we need to have theories founded in current linguistics and philology although it is important to subject them to rigorous linguistic criticism ….)  SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR FIRST SENTENCE AT ALL. "CURRENT LINGUISTICS AND PHILOLOGY" JUST MEANS CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW LANGUAGES, AND HERE CELTIC IN PARTICULAR, ARE STRUCTURED AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT LANGUAGES, INCLUDING CELTIC, WORK AND CHANGE IN SOME OTHER WAY, THEN YOU NEED TO SHOW CURRENT PRACTITIONERS WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT.

 

My apologies, that wasn’t at all clear. I think by “founded" I meant that the idea for a theory need not arise out of the particular area of study it relates to, even though it would have to be validated by it and by its practitioners. As you will be painfully aware, my ’theory’ was not derived from any prior knowledge of linguistics. I just wondered if the name might mean something like ’Ship-men’ (along the lines of the more recent ‘ Sailortown' centred around Wapping, Shadwell and Ratcliffe)  because I thought that’s probably what the area would have been best known for. So I used Google Translate (I know, I know) to translate ‘ship' and ‘men’ into Welsh, stuck the two together, pressed the sound button and heard a voice say “LLondinion”. As I had never heard the words “llong" or “dyn/dynion" before, it startled me and seemed too big a coincidence to be ignored. This was not a matter of "finding vague similarities with the handful of words one knows and then extracting from them a meaning that convinces oneself", as Guto thinks, it was the other way round. I thought about the meaning first, simplified it to two English words and then found two equivalent Welsh words I had never previously heard of, but which, when combined, sounded amazingly like Londinion, which would naturally be latinised to Londinium.

HERE'S A STRAINED ANALOGY. WE'RE WATCHING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE PLAYING AN UNKNOWN SPORT WITH A BALL. [= WE'RE WATCHING LANGUAGES CHANGE.] WE TRY TO WORK OUT THE RULES FOR OURSELVES, AND COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY ONE PLAYER ON EACH SIDE IS ALLOWED TO TOUCH THE BALL WITH THE HANDS; AND THAT IF A RED PLAYER KNOCKS A BLUE PLAYER OVER ON ONE SIDE OF A WHITE LINE, SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAPPENS FROM IF THEY WERE KNOCKED OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SAME LINE. WE DRAW UP A DESCRIPTIVE RULE-BOOK FOR THE GAME BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS. WE CALL IT "FOOTBALL", FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. [= WE HAVE SOME GRASP OF HOW LANGUAGES CHANGE - NOT NECESSARILY PERFECT, AND OFTEN CHALLENGEABLE AFTER FURTHER OBSERVATION.] BUT TO CUT THE STORY SHORT, IT'S UNHELPFUL FOR SOMEONE TO COME UP AND SAY: LET'S ASSUME THE RULES THEY'RE PLAYING BY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE YOU'VE WORKED OUT [AND TURN OUT TO BE ACTUALLY SOMETHING CALLED "RUGBY”]. 

 

I get it, but now let’s suppose instead that the laws of Association Football are themselves analogous to the rules of modern linguistics. If someone who had never previously played football wanted to play, you wouldn’t expect them to learn all the laws of the game, and have a few years coaching before allowing them to join in a jumpers-for goalposts kick-about or even an 11-a-side game if you were a man short . You'd say, 'don’t handle the ball(unless you’re in goal), don’t assault anyone and try to get the ball between those two goalposts (or jumpers). You’ll pick the rest up as you go along! They’ll learn more about the game by playing, as long as you’re not too hard on them when they make mistakes. Admittedly, this might not be a jumpers-for-goalposts linguistics and philology forum, but unfortunately, my analogy is also strained. 

("I also have a theory about the Thames …) IT WILL BE READ IN A FRIENDLY WAY IF YOU FOLLOW CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT STRUCTURE AND CHANGE, OR SHOW WHY THOSE UNDERSTANDINGS COULD BE WRONG.

 

I’m not so sure about it now, but it was based on the idea that Old Father Thames might not be a modern creation (ie Pope) and that the Tha/Ta of Thames/Tamesis is derived from whatever was the Britonnic (or PIE) ancestor of ‘Tad’.  I wondered if mes(is) might equate with “meysydd”. so the meaning would be something like something like “Father of the Fields”. As I say, I don’t have much confidence in it and meysydd probably doesn’t work, but is it possible that it might be “Father” something or other? Mississippi is Father of the Waters apparently.

 

Stephen

On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:23, Richard Coates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Hi Stephen

Please see comments interspersed in your text in lieu of a full essay in reply! They are meant in a friendly and positive spirit.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Dougherty
Sent: 14 January 2019 17:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EPNL] London/Londinium

Hi Richard

I realise that is your view, but as yet, I don’t agree. Perhaps when I know a little more I will. In the meantime, it seems to me that barring some remarkable new archaeological discovery, we may never know the origins of the name for sure. Given the number of possible meanings, the ultimate unknowability of the original language and the huge number of possible variations in pronunciation, aural perception, spelling, vocabulary and context, it makes sense to keep our options open. A significant number of equally plausible theories might be maintained at the same time and until actually disproven, even unfashionable theories might reasonably be kept on the back-burner. (Is the King Lud theory disproven, for example?) I AGREE IN PRINCIPLE WITH YOUR WORDING "Given ... back-burner", BUT IT HAS TO BE SHOWN EITHER THAT ANY SOLUTIONS ALLOWED TO LIE ON THE TABLE ARE TENABLE WITHIN AN EXISTING FRAMEWORK OF UNDERSTANDING, OR THAT THAT FRAMEWORK ITSELF SHOULD BE REJECTED. I THINK YOU WANT TO PROPOSE A SOLUTION THAT REJECTS THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF HOW LANGUAGES CHANGE, AND HOW CELTIC IN PARTICULAR HAS CHANGED, BUT YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN WHY IT SHOULD BE REJECTED OR WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF REJECTING IT WOULD BE FOR CELTIC IN GENERAL, I.E. BEYOND THE PARTICULAR CASE OF LONDINIUM.

New theories should be challenged but not forbidden. The more theories there are, the more directions research can go in and the greater the likelihood that new and important information will come to light. There may be good reasons to dismiss some existing theories, but I don’t understand why we should attempt to do the impossible and disprove all existing theories before suggesting a new one. I certainly have neither the inclination nor the knowhow to attempt to disprove your theory. NO SANE PERSON WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOUR BROAD POSITION (FIRST SENTENCE). I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MY THEORY" (YOU MEAN ABOUT LONDINIUM IN PARTICULAR OR HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS IN GENERAL?) BUT IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE PROPONENT OF ANY NEW THEORY TO SHOW WHY IT'S AT LEAST AS GOOD AS THOSE ON THE TABLE. PLEASE DO SUGGEST NEW SOLUTIONS FOR PARTICULAR NAMES, BUT, TO REPEAT MYSELF, PLAY THE SAME GAME AS THOSE WHO PROPOSED THE OLDER ONES OR SHOW WHY THE RULES THEY WORKED BY COULD BE WRONG. (MORE BELOW.)

I also don’t see why we need to have theories founded in current linguistics and philology, although it is important to subject them to rigorous linguistic criticism. Will theories formulated in the 23rd century be based on early 21st century linguistics and philology? The law of gravity should not be dismissed because it was inspired by an apple falling on Newton’s head and it is well known that Eureka moments can happen in the bath. SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR FIRST SENTENCE AT ALL. "CURRENT LINGUISTICS AND PHILOLOGY" JUST MEANS CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW LANGUAGES, AND HERE CELTIC IN PARTICULAR, ARE STRUCTURED AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT LANGUAGES, INCLUDING CELTIC, WORK AND CHANGE IN SOME OTHER WAY, THEN YOU NEED TO SHOW CURRENT PRACTITIONERS WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT.

HERE'S A STRAINED ANALOGY. WE'RE WATCHING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE PLAYING AN UNKNOWN SPORT WITH A BALL. [= WE'RE WATCHING LANGUAGES CHANGE.] WE TRY TO WORK OUT THE RULES FOR OURSELVES, AND COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY ONE PLAYER ON EACH SIDE IS ALLOWED TO TOUCH THE BALL WITH THE HANDS; AND THAT IF A RED PLAYER KNOCKS A BLUE PLAYER OVER ON ONE SIDE OF A WHITE LINE, SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAPPENS FROM IF THEY WERE KNOCKED OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SAME LINE. WE DRAW UP A DESCRIPTIVE RULE-BOOK FOR THE GAME BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS. WE CALL IT "FOOTBALL", FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. [= WE HAVE SOME GRASP OF HOW LANGUAGES CHANGE - NOT NECESSARILY PERFECT, AND OFTEN CHALLENGEABLE AFTER FURTHER OBSERVATION.] BUT TO CUT THE STORY SHORT, IT'S UNHELPFUL FOR SOMEONE TO COME UP AND SAY: LET'S ASSUME THE RULES THEY'RE PLAYING BY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE YOU'VE WORKED OUT [AND TURN OUT TO BE ACTUALLY SOMETHING CALLED "RUGBY"].

I welcome objective criticism, it’s why I came here and I will go away and read up on the suggested material. I realise that mine is a simplistic and amateur effort, but it might have something in it and I haven’y yet been persuaded to drop it. I might try to lay off the list for a bit though.

I also have a theory about the Thames, but I’ll save that for another day. IT WILL BE READ IN A FRIENDLY WAY IF YOU FOLLOW CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT STRUCTURE AND CHANGE, OR SHOW WHY THOSE UNDERSTANDINGS COULD BE WRONG.

Stephen

On 14 Jan 2019, at 14:22, Richard Coates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Please read carefully! I said if we're going to have a discussion, it needs to be based on why the older theories/solutions could be thought misguided (false, erroneous, insufficient, partial, controversial, mad ....) Being dissatisfied with what's out there is the only excuse for putting another theory into the ring.

And I meant you need to have a theory founded in current linguistics and philology, i.e. knowledge of the way language change works. I have seen more than one item over the years that purports to make a new suggestion about some controversial name but does it at the cost (usually unrecognized and unacknowledged by the author) of ditching accepted historical linguistics and philology.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Dougherty
Sent: 14 January 2019 14:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EPNL] London/Londinium

Yes, it was.  I’m not sure why you think they are misguided, though. 

Why we can’t launch another theory that is there to be tested against  existing understanding rather than based on it? I notice that Llong-dun was once suggested as a possible origin, so although mine is a guess, it seems I’m not the first to think lon might be derived from llong.

S

On 14 Jan 2019, at 09:05, Richard Coates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

For those who missed the allusion: this seems to be a reference to:

Coates, Richard (1998) A new explanation of the name of London. Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 203-229.

Coates' opinion has been subject to competition by:

Breeze, Andrew (2014) Two ancient names: Britanni and Londinium. EOS. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum 101/2, 311-323.

and

Bynon, Thea (2016) London's name. Transactions of the Philological Society 114.3, 281-297.

This is an ongoing thread, even though it's a bit long-drawn-out. But if we are going to discuss Londinium, can we start with a discussion of why these three characters, all of whom base themselves firmly in the pre-existing literature, are misguided? It makes sense to do that before we launch a new theory that is not, as Guto has pointed out eloquently, founded on existing understandings of how Celtic, and historical phonology and morphology in general, actually work?

Richard


-----Original Message-----
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Dougherty
Sent: 14 January 2019 03:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EPNL] London/Londinium

Yes, I think Richard could expand on that!

On 12 Jan 2019, at 05:13, Anthony Appleyard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

If no good origin can be found for "Londinium", could it be a survival from whatever language was spoken in the area before the Celts came?

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

 

 

---

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

 

---

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

 

 

---

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1

---

To unsubscribe from the EPNL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EPNL&A=1