On 15 Jul 2020, at 09:08, Keith Briggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
In Edward, -w- is not intrusive; it was always there.
I suggest checking in G. Kristensson, A survey of Middle English dialects: 1290-1350, the Southern counties, which is far more reliable than Wikipedia and covers the right period for this place-name. I have looked and cannot see anything about intrusive -w-.
It can't be 'Ulf's lane', as Ulf is a strong form.
Keith
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Doughety <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 July 2020 23:58
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Ilnenelaneit says "Vowels [sic] sounds are sometimes …"
Indeed, I quoted the passage in a previous post, but merely reported it second time around, with a minor change. I assumed old Dorset folk regularly boiled, spoiled and pointed at things, so ‘often’ didn’t seem too much of a stretch. Good spot though.
I thought it might apply to the 14th century because the Dorset dialect "stems from the ancient Norse and Saxon” (wikipedia), but once again the only reference seems to be the ubiquitous William Barnes, so, yes, some scepticism is warranted. The explanation for the Germanic origins of the distinctive Dorset z sound seems plausible though.
Why is it impossible to believe an unstressed schwa would be preceded by a w? We do it with the name Edward, so it’s not an unnatural or difficult sound.
The recorded spellings of "wool" can be found in OED and MED. W in manuscripts of this period is usually very distinctive …
Thank you. That does suggest there is no misconstrued W in the manuscript.
I see OE for woollen is wyllen, which might help to explain the variant Ilnen ... if the word was “woollen".
This is probably irrelevant, but ulne is modern Norwegian for “woolly".
If it were Ulven (Elves) Lane, what would be the explanation? I can see why a crooked lane might be called “Elbow Lane” and why a lane that leads to a Shambles might be called “Woollen" or “Woolly” Lane, but I can’t see what would cause a lane to be named Elves Lane, unless it were considerably further north of Dorchester. I could see how it might be Ulf’s Lane (or Wulf’s Lane) though.
Stephwen
On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:46, Keith Briggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The Wikipedia page on Dorset dialect (which seems to present a romanticized nineteenth-century view largely based on Barnes 1863) does not say that "in the Dorset dialect, vowels are often preceded by a [w] sound"; it says "Vowels [sic] sounds are sometimes preceded by a [w] sound, particularly the [ɔɪ̯] sound in words such as boil, spoil and point, and the English long [oʊ̯]". I very much doubt this applies to Dorset in 1400, and it's impossible to believe that such a w was ever inserted before an unstressed schwa.
The recorded spellings of "wool" can be found in OED and MED. W in manuscripts of this period is usually very distinctive, one of the letters which gives least trouble in determining a correct reading (this is my experience in East Anglia, I'm assuming Wessex was similar).
Kweith
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Doughety <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 July 2020 18:04
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: IlnenelaneUlven- is not an option for wool, and the alternative Ulnen- would require "woolnen", an impossible word.
If by Ulven- you mean -v- pronounced as a v rather than a u then, no, that would not be an option.
However, [w]Uluen (roughly pronounced ‘woolwen' or ‘woolwun') makes perfect sense, given that in the Dorset dialect, vowels are often preceded by a [w] sound.
“Woolnen” is perhaps unlikely but by no means impossible. In the absence of uniform spelling, words written down from a spoken vernacular will depend somewhat on the ‘ear’ of the clerk and the idiosyncrasies of the local accent or dialect. Superfluous nasals sometimes creep into spoken words - ’skellington’ for skeleton for example!
But in any case, the word "wool" is never written in the ME period without initial w-.
That's interesting, because I did wonder. What spelling variants are there and, in particular, how is the [w] written? Is it always a w or sometimes a u u or a v v or just a u/v? Without, seeing the manuscript, can we be sure that what we assume to be a V shape is not an Anglicana W?
The key here is the dialect. Is it certain that there are no examples from ME period Dorset of ‘wool’ beginning without a formal w- or a V/U being used to denote a [w] sound? Is wool ever written ‘wl’ with the vowel sound to be inferred? Are there any OE examples? Would a w-less “wool” necessarily be recognised for what it is?
A correct etymology will explain every detail of the spelling of the earliest forms. Conversely, an etymology which doesn't explain even one detail cannot be correct.
But surely this is more a matter of phonology than etymology? There is no dispute about the meaning or origins of ‘wool’. Also the topographical case is strong, and there are other "Woollen Lanes".
Stephen
Ulven- is not an option for wool, and the alternative Ulnen- would require "woolnen", an impossible word.On 14 Jul 2020, at 15:13, Keith Briggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
But in any case, the word "wool" is never written in the ME period without initial w-.
A correct etymology will explain every detail of the spelling of the earliest forms. Conversely, an etymology which doesn't explain even one detail cannot be correct.Keith
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Doughety <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 July 2020 14:20
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: IlnenelaneOnly the third letter is in dispute, and only the first and third are critical for the interpretation.
Agreed. Only the third -n- would make sense as a -u-.
None of the options are compatible with “wool”.
I’m not so sure about that.
In the old Dorset dialect (derived from the old Wessex dialect), “vowels are sometimes preceded by a [w] sound” (Standard English does the same thing with one/once),
in which case, a [w] sound might be assumed to precede a written v-/u- (representing something close to a [ʊ] sound). The first three letters, then would give us wul, which is compatible with “wool”.
There is certainly a -en- in the middle of the name, but this cannot be the suffix forming adjectives denoting the material of which something is made (OED -en, suffix4: oaken, leaden, earthen, woollen, golden, ...). You can't have a lane made of wool, just as you can't have a lane made of ulne.[ə:u]
True, you are unlikely to have a lane made of wool (or ulne) but there are nevertheless Woollen Lanes in Sheffield and Marston Magna, near Yeovil, just as there are Golden Lanes in London and Prague, none of which are made out of wool or gold. This lane, (bent like an elbow or ulne), was once the entrance to the Shambles in Dorchester. It is therefore highly likely that it would frequently have been covered in wool and woollen sheepskins. Certainly the poor sheep would have been led along it to their deaths.
A spelling of either (w)ulnen or (w)uluen, would strongly suggest “Woollen Lane” , although the latter retains the possibility of elfen or perhaps wulfen or wilfen.
As for ulnen, the suffix would denote a metaphorical or rather similised usage (alluding to the shape of the road). We often see this non-literal usage in adjectives such as ‘ashen’ (like ash - eg 'ashen-faced') or ‘wooden’ (like wood - eg when used to describe an actor’s performance ) or ‘flaxen’ (like flax - eg ‘flaxen-haired’ ).
On 13 Jul 2020, at 09:21, Keith Briggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Only the third letter is in dispute, and only the first and third are critical for the interpretation. None of the options are compatible with "wool".
There is certainly a -en- in the middle of the name, but this cannot be the suffix forming adjectives denoting the material of which something is made (OED -en, suffix4: oaken, leaden, earthen, woollen, golden, ...). You can't have a lane made of wool, just as you can't have a lane made of ulne.
Keith
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Doughety <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 12 July 2020 22:55
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: IlnenelaneTrue, mundane is more likely. That’s why I thought a commonplace explanation like Woollen Lane leading to what we know was the Shambles might work. Elbow Lane would also be mundane, but more so if the name was actually Elbow Lane rather than Ulnen Lane! It could probably only be Ulnen (meaning elbow), if it was a word in common usage (at least locally), some time before the end of the 14th century, which, I assume, we don’t know.
You are right though, without clarification of the manuscripts, speculation remains just that - if the third letter is disputed, so might be the fifth and eighth!
Stephen
On 12 Jul 2020, at 17:58, Keith Briggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
No. All we know at the moment is that the third letter is n or u (meaning v), probably the latter. Until that is clarified from the manuscripts, speculation is pointless.
But beyond this, there is the general principle that mundane, commonplace explanations based on everyday English vocabulary are far more often correct than the foreign and fantastic. Just look at the material on street-names of London, Norwich, Lincoln, York, Oxford etc. in EPNS volumes.
Keith
From: The English Place-Name List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Doughety <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 5:41:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: IlnenelaneGiven that Ulnenlane used to lead into the Shambles, is Woolen Lane a possibility?
On 2 Jul 2020, at 09:27, Jeremy Harte <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
When I was a lad, I believed almost everything I read in books, and absolutely everything I read in books published by the English Place-Name Society. So I was chuffed to find, in the section on Dorchester in PN Dorset 1 p350, that Colliton Street was ‘earlier (la) Vlnen(e)lane1393–1436... Ilnen(e)lane 1401–1428... If, as seems likely, Vln-, Iln- are errors for Vlu-, Ilu-, the first of the early names probably means “elves’ lane”, either from OE elf (WSax ielf) (if en(e)- represents an analogical ME wk. gen pl., v. -ena), or, as Professor Löfvenberg suggests, from the fem. OE elfen (WSax ielfen)’. In those days I was often in Colliton Street, where the absence of surviving she-elves was a bit of a disappointment. But time has brought its compensations, one of which is a full set of the Proceedings of the Dorset Nat. Hist. & Arch. Soc, where in 117 (1195) pp21–50 I find an article by the late Jo Draper on ‘The topography of Dorchester in the fifteenth century’, which includes (pp36–8) a very full form series for this street name:Vlnenlane 1393Ulnenlane 1401Ulnlane 1399, 1436Ilnenelane 1401, 1408, 1408, 1410, 1413Ilnenlane 1422, 1428These are the same references as in PN Dorset but I cannot for the life of me see how Vln- and Iln- could consistently appear as an error forVlu- and Ilu-. These are borough records and the notaries were writing down the name of a street that they’d known all their lives. I think we can also rule out the possibility that the original editor, Charles Herbert Mayo, mistranscribed the name eleven times over, as Jo worked on her topography with the archivist Margaret King who went back to the originals and confirmed Mayo’s general accuracy. So all the philological learning behind Mills’ etymology has gone to waste.But does anyone have a better one? I can see that the C14/15 forms might derive from an original ylnena lane, ‘street of the ylns’. But what the devil is an yln?Jeremy Harte