Re: Cyninglic (was: RE: Runes (was: Re: RV: Old English))

Basileus:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:53:36 +0200, BP Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
>
> >At 03:40 31.3.2000 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >>What would modern English reflexes of _Cyninglic_ and _Þéodenlic_
> >>be? Is _king_ regularly from _cyning_, so _Kingly_ (boringly), or
> >>might we instead have something like _Kinningly_?
> >
> >Reasonably regular, just as Old Scandinavian _konungr_ becomes _kung_ or
> >_kong(e)_.
> >Nobody knows how old the shortened forms are, since they might well have
> >existed without being used in the formal context of writing.
>
> Anyway, in both cases the development is not perfectly regular. So a form
> like Kinningly might persist somehow.
>
> Besides, the loss of the final consonant -c is not perfectly
> regular either. It might have been voiced instead: Se Kinninglidge or
> something.
>
> >
> >Since _þeow_ becomes _thief_ i guess _þéodenlic_ would be _thied_.
>
> _thief_ < _þéof_, and the modern spelling is somewhat irregular.
>
> _þéodenlic_ could become Theedenly (or Theedenlidge).
"Cyninglic Theodenlic" sounds as august as "Basileus", but "Kinningly
Theedenlidge" sounds as if he must have been a long-forgotten unsuccessful
vice-presidential candidate in the 1897 US presidential elections.

--And.