Re: écagne, and ConLand names in translation (was: RE: R V: Old English)

Basileus:
> Correcting myself:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:03:16 -0500, Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> wrote:
>
> >If these words were inherited (and not borrowed from medieval Latin),
> >_Lyacia_ would probably become _Liaise_ or _Lièse_ (with possible
> >dialectal variants _Liasse_, _Liache_), and _Lychagia_ would yield
> >something like _Liaie_.
> >
> >Alternatively, with Vulgar Latin /u/ for _y_ (more probable for the
> >earlier form), - _Louaise_ (_Louasse_, _Louache_) and _Louaie_
> >(_Louiaie_?).
>
> - Actually, one needs to know vowel lengths to figure out the French
> forms.
>
> For some reason, I took Vulgar Latin forms with long /i/ but short /u/.
>
> In the reverse case, possible variants will be: _Loyaise_ or _Loyèse_
> (_Loyasse_, _Loyache_), _Loyaie_; _Luaise_ (_Luasse_, _Luache_),
> _Luaie_ (_Luyaie_?).
How do we know what the vowel lengths should be? Forget _Lychagia_; that
wouldn't have been prevalent in Vulgar Latin. It only gained currency
later. Consider just _Lyacia_.

Am I right to think Latin _Liva:gia_ would yield (inherited) Modern French
_Livage_?

What fun it is to have such pickable brains on our List!

--And.