Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:29:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801090729.CAA28009@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Re: Ashley X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1039 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 9 02:29:48 1998 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1998-01-08 21:54, Logical Language Group wrote: >I am curious about Ashley's choice of cecmu for the translation of his >name. I happened to be reading in the Oxford Encycl. of the English >Language, and in the section on the history of the language they mentioned >that "Stanley" descends from Stan-ley +> Stone-lea (stone-field). This >would suggest to me that Ashley would come from a similar etymology meaning >ash-field, which in turn suggests foldi instead of cecmu. I simply looked up the name in the 'Some first names' section of my dictionary (Chambers of Cambridge, 1988): Ashley, Ashleigh ash'li, m. and f. (Gmc.) from the surname derived from the common place name, meaning ash wood. The entry for 'Stanley' simply says it's from a place-name. 'Ash wood' seems more credible than 'ash field' if only because fields don't normally have trees in them - perhaps similar names (surnames) are 'Oakley' and 'Thornley', making a nice Kiplingesque arboreal triad. -- fe'oca'emi'e tricrfraksi zeicecmu .iji'a ca'emi'e .aclin.