Welsh and Wallis
Oliver Cromm
and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does anybody
remember? Was there a shared adjective?
--
Oliver Cromm
a Canadian social worker ... published her treatise, On
Contraceptive Devices, in Kapuskan patois (to spare the
blushes of Estotians and United Statians...) - VN, Ada
Donna Richoux
> I faintly remember a linguistic connection between the northern land
> and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does anybody
> remember? Was there a shared adjective?
The only "Wallis" in Brewer's Names is an archipelago in the Pacific.
However, I think you're thinking of the fact that "wal-" is the ancient
Germanic word for Celt/Gaul/foreigner. Brewer's says that this appears
in: Wales, Cornwall, Saffron Walden, Walachia, Walcheren, Wallasey,
Walton-on-Thames, and possibly Gaul, Walloon, and the surname Wallace.
Also walnut (probably "foreign nut," not "Welsh nut").
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Isabelle Cecchini
news:Xns936891B8549...@206.167.113.5
> I faintly remember a linguistic connection between the northern land
> and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does
> anybody remember? Was there a shared adjective?
It might be argued that there is a dim connection, going back to 1937,
when Edward VIII, who was Prince of Wales before becoming King, which I
suppose meant he was some sort of Welshman, married a woman named
Wallis.
I doubt it is exactly what you are looking for, though.
As for the Swiss canton, its name comes from Latin 'vallis' (= valley)
=> Valais in French. I am not aware of any connection to 'Welsh' (Donna
has already provided the etymology for that one).
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Oliver Cromm <scherzk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I faintly remember a linguistic connection between the northern land
>> and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does anybody
>> remember? Was there a shared adjective?
>
>The only "Wallis" in Brewer's Names is an archipelago in the Pacific.
>
Wallis is the German name of the canton more usually known by the
French version, Valais.
>However, I think you're thinking of the fact that "wal-" is the ancient
>Germanic word for Celt/Gaul/foreigner. Brewer's says that this appears
>in: Wales, Cornwall, Saffron Walden, Walachia, Walcheren, Wallasey,
>Walton-on-Thames, and possibly Gaul, Walloon, and the surname Wallace.
>
>Also walnut (probably "foreign nut," not "Welsh nut").
I suspect that Wallis/Valais comes from the same root.
--
Don Aitken
Jason Kirk
> Oliver Cromm a écrit dans
> news:Xns936891B8549...@206.167.113.5
>> I faintly remember a linguistic connection between the northern land
>> and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does
>> anybody remember? Was there a shared adjective?
>
> It might be argued that there is a dim connection, going back to 1937,
> when Edward VIII, who was Prince of Wales before becoming King, which I
> suppose meant he was some sort of Welshman, married a woman named
> Wallis.
If I remember correctly the Prince of Wales, be definition, is an
Englishman. Something about one of the old Kings slaughtering the last of
the true Welsh Princes and then telling the people of Wales that to make
amends he would give then a new Prince. He said he'd give them a Prince
that spoke no English - they thought it would be a Welshman (one of their own),
instead the cunning King gave them his newborn son (who at the time didn't
speak any language). And so starting the English domination (some would use
more colourful words) of Wales.
-Jason
mb
...
> I faintly remember a linguistic connection between the northern land
> and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does anybody
> remember? Was there a shared adjective?
Couldn't find such a thread on Google. However, the Valais or Wallis
(of supposedly Romance origin) doesn't seem to share its etymology
with "welsh". "Welsch" (as we know it from English) is the usual
adjective for foreigner in German too --the francophone Swiss are
called Welsch in Swiss German and this has originated some folk
etymology re Wallis. A patronymic Wallis, though, would probably be
related to its British equivalent.
Oliver Cromm
> As for the Swiss canton, its name comes from Latin 'vallis' (=
> valley) => Valais in French. I am not aware of any connection to
> 'Welsh' (Donna has already provided the etymology for that one).
Thanks for the etymologies.
I found one more link: C.Ritz, the founder of the hotel group, was from
Valais, and he apparently was awarded the title "the king of hoteliers
and the hotelier of kings" by the Prince of Wales.
I remembered by now that the thread I was looking for was in a German
language group, as in German, certain derived adjectives are sometimes
confused ("Waliser Art", "Walliser Art"). That they don't share an
origin makes the confusion worse.
Start of the German thread at
<3e817afd$0$21711$9b62...@news.freenet.de>
--
Oliver Cromm
The best sign for intelligent life in space is
that they're not visiting us
Lars Eighner
<pan.2003.04.25....@captain.custard.org>,
the lovely and talented Jason Kirk
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:55:31 +0200, Isabelle Cecchini wrote:
>> Oliver Cromm a écrit dans
>> news:Xns936891B8549...@206.167.113.5
>>> I faintly remember a linguistic connection between the northern land
>>> and the Swiss canton in this forum, but I can't google it. Does
>>> anybody remember? Was there a shared adjective?
>>
>> It might be argued that there is a dim connection, going back to 1937,
>> when Edward VIII, who was Prince of Wales before becoming King, which I
>> suppose meant he was some sort of Welshman, married a woman named
>> Wallis.
> If I remember correctly the Prince of Wales, be definition, is an
> Englishman.
A dubious proposition throughout much, if not all, of English history.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
One thorn of experience is worn a whole wilderness of warning.
--James Russell Lowell
Isabelle Cecchini
news:pan.2003.04.25....@captain.custard.org
[...]
>
> If I remember correctly the Prince of Wales, be definition, is an
> Englishman. Something about one of the old Kings slaughtering the
> last of
> the true Welsh Princes and then telling the people of Wales that to
> make amends he would give then a new Prince. He said he'd give them a
> Prince
> that spoke no English - they thought it would be a Welshman (one of
> their own), instead the cunning King gave them his newborn son (who
> at the time didn't speak any language). And so starting the English
> domination (some would use more colourful words) of Wales.
>
> -Jason
Thanks for that story. I didn't know it. I vaguely suspect you might be
pulling my foreigner's leg, though: wasn't the first Prince of Wales 16
years of age when he got the title from his father Edward I?
Maybe he was a late developer.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Don Aitken
<isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>Jason Kirk a écrit dans
>news:pan.2003.04.25....@captain.custard.org
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> If I remember correctly the Prince of Wales, be definition, is an
>> Englishman. Something about one of the old Kings slaughtering the
>> last of
>> the true Welsh Princes and then telling the people of Wales that to
>> make amends he would give then a new Prince. He said he'd give them a
>> Prince
>> that spoke no English - they thought it would be a Welshman (one of
>> their own), instead the cunning King gave them his newborn son (who
>> at the time didn't speak any language). And so starting the English
>> domination (some would use more colourful words) of Wales.
>>
>Thanks for that story. I didn't know it. I vaguely suspect you might be
>pulling my foreigner's leg, though: wasn't the first Prince of Wales 16
>years of age when he got the title from his father Edward I?
>
>Maybe he was a late developer.
You've put your finger on the problem! The story depends on the belief
that Edward I actually announced that the title would be bestowed when
his son was still an infant. (I know there's an ambiguity in that
sentence, but only one reading makes any sense, and I can't be
bothered to mess with it.) The legend is certainly several centuries
old, but does not seem to go back to Edward's own time. It's just one
of those historical bits that "everybody knows".
--
Don Aitken
Matti Lamprhey
> >> If I remember correctly the Prince of Wales, be definition, is an
> >> Englishman. Something about one of the old Kings slaughtering the
> >> last of the true Welsh Princes and then telling the people of Wales
> >> that to make amends he would give then a new Prince. He said he'd
> >> give them a Prince that spoke no English - they thought it would be
> >> a Welshman (one of their own), instead the cunning King gave them
> >> his newborn son (who at the time didn't speak any language). And so
> >> starting the English domination (some would use more colourful
> >> words) of Wales.
> >>
> >Thanks for that story. I didn't know it. I vaguely suspect you might
> >be pulling my foreigner's leg, though: wasn't the first Prince of
> >Wales 16 years of age when he got the title from his father Edward I?
> >
> >Maybe he was a late developer.
>
> You've put your finger on the problem! The story depends on the belief
> that Edward I actually announced that the title would be bestowed when
> his son was still an infant. (I know there's an ambiguity in that
> sentence, but only one reading makes any sense, and I can't be
> bothered to mess with it.) The legend is certainly several centuries
> old, but does not seem to go back to Edward's own time. It's just one
> of those historical bits that "everybody knows".
The legend wasn't recorded until 1584, exactly 300 years after the birth
of the first English Prince of Wales. The real flaw is this, however:
it's safe to assume that Edward would have given the title to his eldest
son, and this was not the child who eventually became Edward, Prince of
Wales (at age 17, not 16), but ***, who succumbed in boyhood.
(The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
>
> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
Matti
Frances Kemmish
Henry Plantagenet (1267-1274)? What's unlikely about that?
Fran
Isabelle Cecchini
I've found the names of all of Edward I's children here
http://bobcat.webappcabaret.net/royalist/execute/biog?person=95 ,
including his first-born son (John) and his so sweetly named third-born
son, who was the only one still alive at the time of Edward's birth, and
was thus the eldest then, if I've followed Matti's reasoning rightly.
The Internet devil then whispered into my ear "Go on, click on 'Edward
II', you might learn something interesting." I did, and learnt
everything I didn't want to know about the probable cause of Edward II's
death.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Frances Kemmish
I had transposed Henry and John. I assume that Matti was referring to
Alfonso, the third son. I suppose that they had to name at least one son
for the mother's family.
Every website I've looked at seems to have a different number for Edward
I's children - anywhere from 18 to 25. Is there any generally-accepted
number?
Fran
Matti Lamprhey
Absolutely correct, Isabelle -- the eldest son at the time of Edward
II's birth was very sweetly named! Perhaps they decided there was no
way he could have been Prince of Wales without being teased
unmercifully.
Matti
Skitt
> "Matti Lamprhey" wrote...
>> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
>> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
>
> I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
> unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
Say what?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
R J Valentine
} Matti Lamprhey wrote:
}> "Matti Lamprhey" wrote...
}
}>> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
}>> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
}>
}> I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
}> unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
}
} Say what?
"Mindblowingly".
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Skitt
Skitt
"R J Valentine" wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
> } Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> }> "Matti Lamprhey" wrote...
> }>> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
> }>> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
> }>
> }> I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
> }> unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
> }
> } Say what?
>
> "Mindblowingly".
Oh, you mean "mind-blowingly", right?
R J Valentine
} "R J Valentine" wrote:
}> Skitt wrote:
}> } Matti Lamprhey wrote:
}> }> "Matti Lamprhey" wrote...
}
}> }>> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
}> }>> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
}> }>
}> }> I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
}> }> unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
}> }
}> } Say what?
}>
}> "Mindblowingly".
}
} Oh, you mean "mind-blowingly", right?
Me? No. My guess is that Mr. Lamprhey didn't, either, at least in the
say-whatted sentence (though possibly in the one that referred to).
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> > "Matti Lamprhey" wrote...
>
> >> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
> >> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
> >
> > I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
> > unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
>
> Say what?
I wrote "mindblowingly" but accepted the change to "mind-blowing"
without noticing the new error thus introduced!
By the way, I think that the latest "Windows Update" to Outlook Express
has fixed that bomb-out-during-editing problem we discussed.
Matti
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote...
>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>> "Matti Lamprhey" wrote...
>>>> (The *** is an exercise left for the reader, and is mind-blowing
>>>> unlikely. Isabelle will probably like it, however.)
>>>
>>> I apologize for negligent use of my spellchecker, which converted an
>>> unhyphenated adverb to a hyphenated adjective.
>>
>> Say what?
>
> I wrote "mindblowingly" but accepted the change to "mind-blowing"
> without noticing the new error thus introduced!
"Mind-blowingly" would have been better, although the spelling checker would
have balked at it anyway. The hyphenation rules don't distinguish between
adjectives and adverbs, as far as I know.
> By the way, I think that the latest "Windows Update" to Outlook
> Express has fixed that bomb-out-during-editing problem we discussed.
I have not had any problems since that fix I installed. I also installed
the next update, and everything is still OK.
R J Valentine
...
} "Mind-blowingly" would have been better, although the spelling checker would
} have balked at it anyway. The hyphenation rules don't distinguish between
} adjectives and adverbs, as far as I know.
You know, I was more than inclined to agree at first, but I think this is
a matter of hypohyphenation that underlies the process by which words tend
to lose their hyphens, hypohyphenationbackformationally. I'm with you as
far as "mind-blowing", but the "ly" suffix by its lack of hyphenation
would seem to bind tighter than the hyphen, so there is a natural tendency
to drop the hyphen (to make the whole thing an adverb, rather than just
the last part) competing with a tendency to preserve at least the idea of
a hyphen. Some programmers seem to like internal caps to adhocly deal
with it, so it's possible it could pop up as "mindBlowingly" in a chat
room or something, only to be scorned in newsgroups and e-mail. With
italics or underlining, the equivalent of _mind_blowingly is conceivable,
but couldn't be kept up without medicinal help (making it suitable for
boxer shorts). I'm thinking that the syllable boundary in its obviosity
provides its own hemihypohyphenation, where it wouldn't so much in words
like "noone" or "coworker", where someone could easily be misled. The
empirical stuff is left to the interested student, but I'm guessing that
"mindblowingly" is actually more likely than "mind-blowingly", which in
turn would eventually add pressure to making it "mindblowing", rather than
"mind-blowing".
It's a process thing. Linguists are never around when you need them
(NTTAWWT).
R F
> I'm thinking that the syllable boundary in its obviosity
> provides its own hemihypohyphenation, where it wouldn't so much in words
> like "noone" or "coworker", where someone could easily be misled. The
> empirical stuff is left to the interested student, but I'm guessing that
> "mindblowingly" is actually more likely than "mind-blowingly", which in
> turn would eventually add pressure to making it "mindblowing", rather than
> "mind-blowing".
>
> It's a process thing.
R J is exactly right. It's a process. Published a paper about it many
years ago:
F, R. 1962. "R J Is Exactly Right: It's a Process".
In Papers from the 3rd Tri-Annual Get-Together
[PLH 3], Punctuationist League of Hackensack.
--
R F
"Lotte Lenya/And Lucy Brown" -- Bertolt Brecht
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
Google likes the hyphen, but only by a 2 to 1 ratio. It makes sense to me.
Matti Lamprhey
> Skitt <ski...@attbi.com> wrote:
> ...
> } "Mind-blowingly" would have been better, although the spelling
> } checker would have balked at it anyway. The hyphenation rules don't
> } distinguish between adjectives and adverbs, as far as I know.
>
> You know, I was more than inclined to agree at first, but I think this
> is a matter of hypohyphenation that underlies the process by which
> words tend to lose their hyphens, hypohyphenationbackformationally.
> I'm with you as far as "mind-blowing", but the "ly" suffix by its lack
Thanks for your excellent rationalization for my instinct there.
> I'm thinking that the syllable boundary in its obviosity provides its
> own hemihypohyphenation, where it wouldn't so much in words
> like "noone" or "coworker", where someone could easily be misled.
Sometimes I wonder whether people are more misled by misled than by
noone.
Matti
Don Aitken
Dulcie Ashdown's "Royal Children", which, unusually, is fairly
thorough in including children who died young, gives four sons and
nine daughters by the first marriage, and two sons and two daughters
by the second, making it seventeen altogether. Do the figures you have
seen include illegitimate children?
Edward hold the record for legitimate children, but the highest
overall total goes to Henry I with two legitimate and twenty-four
illegitimate, "including probables", according his biographer,
Hollister.
--
Don Aitken
Frances Kemmish
This is one of the sites I looked at this morning: It shows Elanor as
giving birth to 17 children, including several who were either or
stillborn, or who lived less than a year. It includes the four born to
Margaret, but no illegitimate children.
The site which Isabelle quoted only gives three children to Margaret,
calling John illegitimate. I don't recall the other sites, but I think
they listed some more illegitimate children.
That's plenty, anyway.
One site I looked at also said that everyone in England is descended
from Joan of Kent. That shows how much faith one can put in genealogy on
the web.
Fran
Donna Richoux
> R J Valentine wrote:
> > empirical stuff is left to the interested student, but I'm guessing
> > that "mindblowingly" is actually more likely than "mind-blowingly",
> > which in turn would eventually add pressure to making it "mindblowing",
> > rather than "mind-blowing".
> >
> > It's a process thing. Linguists are never around when you need them
> > (NTTAWWT).
>
> Google likes the hyphen, but only by a 2 to 1 ratio. It makes sense to me.
But we just had a rather exhausting discussion ("free will") showing
that you can't use Google to count hyphen usage. It treats them seven
ways from Sunday.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Skitt
True. OK, results presented differently:
Single word results: 1650 hits.
Hyphenated and two-word results (enclosed in quote marks to avoid inclusion
of the single-word usage) : 5690 hits
There is a problem separating the two-word version from the hyphenated one,
but it looks like the hyphenated hits exceed the two-word ones by a large
margin.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> One site I looked at also said that everyone in England is descended
> from Joan of Kent.
To be more specific, Joan of Maidstone; so in fact they could be onto
something here.
Matti
Donna Richoux
> "Frances Kemmish" <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote...
> >
> > One site I looked at also said that everyone in England is descended
> > from Joan of Kent.
>
> To be more specific, Joan of Maidstone;
Are you sure? Google finds only one hit for "Joan of Maidstone" and it's
a red herring.
>so in fact they could be onto
> something here.
Well, Joan of Kent did have seven children (one of them Richard II) so
it's a start.
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > "Frances Kemmish" <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote...
> > >
> > > One site I looked at also said that everyone in England is
> > > descended from Joan of Kent.
> >
> > onto something here.
>
> Are you sure? Google finds only one hit for "Joan of Maidstone" and
> it's a red herring.
The bit I typed between the lines in white was "Humour a lert, and one
day it may return the favour."
Maidstone is the kind of place where sex is a widespread hobby.
Matti
Donna Richoux
I see. I don't think its reputation has spread beyond your shores.
Simon R. Hughes
It didn't spread 25 miles up the road, either, which is where I
spent my formative years.
--
Simon R. Hughes
War is Peace!