> The deductions are made from the earliest records of names, by people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England. > How then do you account for the spelling in 958 of "Hereford" (ie > unchanged), "here" in old english means army no guessing involved. > Unless a student somewhere discovers a hereto unknown alternative meaning of > the Old English word "oxna" it cannot have had other meaning in the C10th > when it was recorded as Oxnaforda. > The study of place names by the Institute can be of great help to historians > to gain an understanding of an area and how the landscape has been used and > developed. > David Pott Well, I mean no disrespect to the professional experts - whether of place-names in England or WMD in Iraq. They base their conclusions on the information they have. However, there is much information they don't have. If Hereford was first named in 958, and some professional scribe witnessed the naming of the fording-place, then fair enough. But was it, and did he? It may be harsh to apply the word "guess" to an unproven deduction, but as with military intelligence if the professionals fail to think "outside the box" they may make mistakes. There is a tendency to get hung up on *written* evidence. My guess is that the river was first forded at what came to be called Hereford long before the name "Hereford" was written down - and incidentally long before "old english" came to be spoken there. The first forders there were quite possibly the antecedents of the Celts - or, at least, the namers of the river that came to be called "Arrow". That's my guess, but I am happy to tolerate other guesses. The same line of reasoning applies to Oxford. What professional expert would bet his pension that it was speakers of "Old English" who first crossed the river (the Exe, probably, however said and spelt) at what became Oxford? In effect, David has implied that "people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England" have deduced that nobody ever crossed the river at Oxford before "Old English" (which isn't all that ancient a language, after all) was spoken there. OR, that no preceding river-crossers bothered to name the place. Even professionals can develop a weakness for folk-etymology. Gordon

Good Morning Everyone - another day passes! What of "HEREFORD" indeed? The concise 'Oxford' Dictionary of Placenames by Elert Ekwall 4th Edition, is quite explicit. An Army Ford - The year 958 is the year he quotes also sourced by Cartularium Saxonicom, ed. Birch, London, 1885-93. Quoting also Domesday Book. He however goes on to elucidate: "If this is the meaning, the reference would be to a ford where a marching column could pass in closed order. Also Herford in Germany". He further says after referencing other possibilities: "Hereford is not used as a ford where a Roman road crosses a river. This was Straetford. But a Hereford seems to have been an important ford". "HERE" by itself also means Host or Multitude. I think this adds quite nicely to Gordon's summing. BE READY but not TOO READY! Kind Regards Roy & June Cox www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Barlow [mailto:barlow@candw.ky] Sent: 15 August 2004 00:11 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] settlements' names > The deductions are made from the earliest records of names, by people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England. > How then do you account for the spelling in 958 of "Hereford" (ie > unchanged), "here" in old english means army no guessing involved. > Unless a student somewhere discovers a hereto unknown alternative meaning of > the Old English word "oxna" it cannot have had other meaning in the C10th > when it was recorded as Oxnaforda. > The study of place names by the Institute can be of great help to historians > to gain an understanding of an area and how the landscape has been used and > developed. > David Pott Well, I mean no disrespect to the professional experts - whether of place-names in England or WMD in Iraq. They base their conclusions on the information they have. However, there is much information they don't have. If Hereford was first named in 958, and some professional scribe witnessed the naming of the fording-place, then fair enough. But was it, and did he? It may be harsh to apply the word "guess" to an unproven deduction, but as with military intelligence if the professionals fail to think "outside the box" they may make mistakes. There is a tendency to get hung up on *written* evidence. My guess is that the river was first forded at what came to be called Hereford long before the name "Hereford" was written down - and incidentally long before "old english" came to be spoken there. The first forders there were quite possibly the antecedents of the Celts - or, at least, the namers of the river that came to be called "Arrow". That's my guess, but I am happy to tolerate other guesses. The same line of reasoning applies to Oxford. What professional expert would bet his pension that it was speakers of "Old English" who first crossed the river (the Exe, probably, however said and spelt) at what became Oxford? In effect, David has implied that "people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England" have deduced that nobody ever crossed the river at Oxford before "Old English" (which isn't all that ancient a language, after all) was spoken there. OR, that no preceding river-crossers bothered to name the place. Even professionals can develop a weakness for folk-etymology. Gordon ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== Going away for a while? Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com