SELIM
Mª Auxiliadora Martín, Selim 10 (2000): 101—109
OLD ENGLISH EO IN MIDDLE KENTISH PLACE-NAMES1
1. MIDDLE KENTISH AND PLACE-NAME STUDIES
The Middle English period is characterised by its great dialectal diversity
and has as one of its most peculiar varieties the dialect of Kent, Kentish, also
called south-eastern variety. Those who have traditionally searched for the
regional features reflected in anchor texts from Kent have regarded this
variety as a Middle English dialect in which sound changes have an
unconventional behaviour.
Complementary to these traditional textual analyses is the onomastic
approach developed within the field of medieval dialectology during the 20th
century. Following this approach, names are regarded as true informants of
phonological change, and place-names, in particular, as “the material which
has so far proved most profitable for the investigation of OE and ME
dialects” (Kristensson 1967: XII). The inherent condition of place-names as
accurate locators of dialectal variants and their importance in providing
sometimes the only evidence of specific sound developments has produced
works such as Serjeantson (1922, 1924, 1927a, 1927b), Ekwall (1931),
Smith (1956), and Ek (1972, 1975).
This onomastic approach to medieval dialectology received a further
boost in the 1950s when Kristensson decided to embark on a survey of the
Middle English dialects. So far, this project has given place to four volumes
Kristensson (1967, 1987, 1995, 2001). This research project, still in
progress, aims to investigate the dialects of Middle English through the
formal study of place-names and surnames from c. 1290-1350 and has as its
primary source the Lay Subsidy Rolls, the official documents that more
faithfully seem to reflect the local uses. The last volume published by
Kristensson (2001) has an obvious interest for those concerned with Kentish
1 This paper is part of a research project titled “Diccionario nuclear sintáctico de base
semántica del léxico del inglés antiguo”, funded by the Gobierno Autónomo de
Canarias (No. PI 1999/136).
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
56
matters since it deals with vowels (except diphthongs) in the Southern
counties (the dialect of Kent included).
The main intention behind this research paper is to participate of this
onomastic perspective and contribute to Kristensson’s investigation by doing
a formal analysis of OE eo (a diphthong that has traditionally been regarded
as dialectally relevant in Middle Kentish) in medieval place-names of Kent.
This analysis, for both the first (or unique), and the second constituent of a
Kentish compound noun,1 will be done by checking our early Middle
English material against the data assembled for late Middle English, that is
name-forms from the 12th and 14th cc. respectively.
With this time-span in mind, we cannot limit ourselves to take the above
mentioned Subsidy Rolls as our single primary source, mainly because these
Rolls date back only to the second half of the 12th c., this being a period
when they had not even been regularly and consistently established. On the
other hand, there are authors who consider other documents to be equally
valid to these as medieval dialectal sources. Arngart, for example, claims
that the Assize Rolls have “a nearly equal right with the Subsidy Rolls of
being described as local documents” (1949: 26-27).
Kentish registers from, among others, these two sources (the Subsidy
Rolls and the Assize Rolls) also comprise Wallenberg’s The Place-Names of
Kent (1934) —henceforth PNK—, which is regarded up to now as the most
important compilation to carry out research on the medieval place-names of
Kent.2 We will consequently take as a main source for the data gathering of
this piece of research Wallenberg’s PNK3, where the author, after
scrutinising the most relevant English documents, shows the reader the
written name-records of every single farm, village, parish and hundred of
medieval Kent. These records, besides their corresponding source
1 The intention behind this lies in checking whether the position of this OE
sound in a stressed or in an unstressed syllable affects its ME development.
Ek (1972: 66) claims that this fact does not affect the ME development of
this OE variable.
2 Ek (1975) also uses, as a basis for his Kentish data, Wallenberg’s Place Names of
Kent.
3 Apart from other secondary sources: Anderson (1934-1939), Cameron (1961),
Reany (1964), Copley (1968) and Ekwall (1980).
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
57
references, include an etymological definition that served as a basis for the
data gathering.
The authors of A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (McIntosh et
al. 1986) —henceforth LALME— following an evidently geographical
perspective but still adopting a new methodology (that of applying
systematically a strict questionnaire of linguistic items to a heterogeneous
selection of texts), get to draw a more approximate picture of the dialectal
variation of late medieval English (c. 1350–1450). Although the intention
behind the authors of this Atlas may have been different, the scarcity of
medieval sources also allows us to profit from the formal diversity captured
in the 14 Kentish Linguistic Profiles generated thanks to the fit-technique.
LALME therefore will also constitute a potential frame, among others, with
which to compare our 14th c. data.
2. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION1
We centre upon the study of the evolution of OE eo firstly because in
Kentish “the long diphthongs underwent a separate development” (Hogg
1992: §5.210), and secondly because “it is only the long OE diphthong that
is of interest. OE eo did not undergo any particularly Kentish development”
(Ek 1972: 8).
The origin of OE eo is the Germanic diphthong *eu. This diphthong
seems to have passed into primitive Old English preserving the second
element -u, although it does appear as eo already in early texts. During the
Middle English period, we will see however how the historical evolution of
eo, at least in the dialect of Kent, is intimately connected with the
development of another Germanic diphthong, *iu. This long diphthong, in a
first stage of Old English, also preserves the second element -u, but will
soon develop into io (Luick 1914/1941: §191; Campbell 1959: §297; Jordan-
Crook 1974: §§84-85; Hogg 1992: §5.160).
1 Variables and variants will be generally represented in italics. We only use “< >” or
“[ ]” when spellings or sounds, respectively, are meant explicitly. In order to
conform to this convention, some illustrative quotations had to be slightly
modified, that is, adapting the original format to this one.
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
58
The degree of interrelation between both diphthongs is such that Wyld
(1921), Campbell (1959), Hogg (1992) or Ek (1972), among others, consider
that, in Kentish, both of them (either long or short) are confused and, as
regards the long one, io seems to be more common than eo. In Kentish
documents from, according to Campbell (1959: §297) and Hogg (1992: §§
5.155-5.162), the 9th c. and, according to Ek (1972: 13), the 7th c., we notice
a marked tendency to raise the point of articulation of the first element of the
diphthongs eo and eo (although this tendency seems to be less evident in the
second one). Besides, we can infer from the Kentish Glosses (KG) that the
diphthongs eo and io coalesced into one long diphthong io (or ia),1 while
short eo and io coalesced, on the other hand, into eo in West Saxon, Mercian
and Kentish (Hogg 1992: §§5.155-5.160). These conclusions, based on the
KG, are confirmed by the Middle English developments observed, for
example, by Jordan-Crook (1974: §§84-85), or Luick (1914/1941: §§260-
261) (for the latter, the change eo > io is first registered in Kent in the 7th c.
and finally generalised in the 10th c.).
Leaving Kent aside, it seems to be the case that already at the end of Old
English the diphthong eo is monophthongised to e in Essex and Suffolk.
This smoothing process that, at the end of the 12th c. and the beginning of the
13th c., will affect the Southwest, the Central and West Midlands, the
territory of London and its adjacent counties (except Kent), changes eo into
a rounded [ö:]. This [ö:] is generally unrounded during the 13th c., except in
the Southwest and the West Midlands, and progressively changes to an e,
represented with either the typical spellings of the time, that is <e, ee, ei,
ey>2, or the Anglo-Norman spelling convention <ie>. As far as the West
Midlands and the South-western counties are concerned, the process of
unrounding does not take place until much later (14th - 15th cc.), and
therefore it is here where it will keep on being spelt with the original <eo>3
1 “It will be observed that the first element of eo tends to be raised in Kt., producing
io, or, with unrounding of the second element, ia” (Campbell 1959: §280 (n. 3)).
2 “ ‘e is often written <ei, ey>, esp. in the South […] This spelling is probably
nothing but a graphic symbol for e’ (Thuresson 1950: 251; see also Kristensson
1967: 172.)” (Ek 1972: 95).
3 This distribution coincides with that offered by Jordan-Crook in the dialectal map
adapted from Moore, Meech, and Whitehall (1935), in which we single out that
“line F represents the eastern and northern limit for OE eo retained as a front round
vowel /ø:/ spelled <eo, o, oe, u, ue>” (1974: § 84 (Remark 5)).
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
59
for a longer time. While preserving its roundness this sound may gradually
raise to [y] and be represented with the Anglo-Norman spelling conventions
<o, u, ue, ui, uy, oe, eu> (Wyld 1921: 129-34; 1927: §168-69; Mossé 1952:
§30; Campbell 1959: §329 (2); Ek 1972: 12-13; and Jordan-Crook 1974:
§84-85).
In South-eastern texts, particularly in Kentish, the old diphthong eo is
frequently spelt <ie, io, ye>. These digraphs are however inconsistent (Wyld
1927: §169) because we can occasionally find in Kentish spellings such as
<ia, ee, oe, eo, e, i, y> (Wyld 1921: 12; Campbell 1959: §297; Jordan-Crook
1974: §85; Hogg 1992; §5.160). Campbell (1959: §329 (2)) and Jordan-
Crook (1974: §85 (2)) have argued that <ie, ye>, typically Kentish digraphs,
could represent a diphthongal pronunciation (with a rising diphthong) and
suggest that in Kentish the monophthongisation process of OE eo may not
have existed. For Wyld (1927: §169) and Brook (1965: 70-71) this is
extremely improbable since <ie> (and maybe also <ye> in Kentish) is an
Anglo-Norman representation frequently used in Middle English as an
expression for [e:].
For Ek (1972: 108 and 119-120), however, the traditional development ie
evidenced in Kentish texts and place-names is not due to the Anglo-Norman
orthographic influence but it merely represents a variant of a diphthongal
development that might have been smoothed to i in a subsequent stage. He
bases this inference on the following solid premises: (i.) the diphthongal
character that forms with ye show; (ii.) the presence of forms with ie before
1350, when the Anglo-Norman convention was used only occasionally; (iii.)
the possible ambiguity that could have been created with the e-development
of OE y in this south-eastern side of the country; (iv.) the absence of forms
with ie or ye in counties like Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire or
Huntingdonshire (Ek 1972: 108 and 119-120).
3. DISTRIBUTION OF OE EO IN TWELFTH-CENTURY KENT
3.1. FIRST ELEMENT
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
60
20 Kentish localities from the 12th c. have a first or unique element that
derives from OE eo. These Middle Kentish developments alternate
fundamentally between variants with e and alternatives with i.
As regards the e-variant only Beckenham and Greatness present in the
12th c. an exclusive e-development (see table 1). Other four localities present
a predominant e-development alternating with diverse minor variants (see
Bensted, Greet, Chelsfield and Leaveland in table 1). In five of them the
development is mixed, either <e/i> (see Ridley, Newchurch and Tudeley in
Table 1), <e/ea> (see Grain in table 1 below), or <e/io> (see Lewisham in
table 1). Finally, in other four localities, Newenden (Selbrittenden Hd.),
Newington (Milton Hd.), Newnham and Preston (see Table 1: 12th c. Kentish
place-name forms with e in the first or unique element), the e-variant appears
as a non-predominant development.
With respect to the i-variant Ifield, Twinney Creek, and Newington
(Folkestone Hd.) (see Table 2: 12th c. Kentish place-name forms with i in the
first or unique element) present exclusive developments. In Newington
(Milton Hd.), Newnham and Newenden (Selbrittenden Hd.) <i> is the
predominant development (see Table 2). As we saw earlier on, in Ridley,
Newchurch and Tudeley the development is a mixed <e/i> (see table 2).
Finally, in Chelsfield and Leaveland (see Table 2) <i> is in a non-
predominant distribution.
We also have a relative high percentage of digraphs in the first element
of these 12th c. place-names. These traditionally Kentish forms are <ea> in
Bensted and Grain (see both of them in Table 1); <eo> in Lydden
(Folkestone Hd.) (Hleodaena c. 1100 Dom Mon); <ie> in Greet, Leaveland
(see both of them in table 1), Lewsome (de Lieurechestune 1176 Facs) and
Lydden (Folkestone Hd.) (Liedenne 1176 BM Facs); and <io> in Leaveland
(see table 1). In agreement with Ek, we can only admit those place-name
forms with <ie> as standing for a real diphthongal pronunciation.1
Ek (1972) distinguishes in his analysis, as so do Jordan-Crook (1974:
§109), among: (i.) a diphthong eo + w; (ii.) a diphthong eo unaccompanied
by w; and (iii.) a diphthong eo before consonantal groups with a homorganic
1 See above Ek’s considerations in this respect (Ek 1972: 108 and 119-120).
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
61
voiced consonant causing lengthening. The first category applies to OE
neowe and eow that appear as first constituents of our place-name forms in
the 12th c. The rest of our constituents belong to the second category,
whereas there are no candidates for the third one.
OE neowe and eow are in this sense worth being analysed in detail
because in both of them we have to consider the possible particular evolution
of the diphthong eo when in the vicinity of w. Ek reminds us that Jordan
(1974: §109) and Luick (1914/1941: §399) claim that, as a consequence of
the vocalisation of the semivowel, eo + w will give place to a diphthong [eu]
that will in turn become [iu], but “Luick also says that in spite of a
development [eu] > [iu] the writing <ew> was still kept in most cases” (Ek
1972: 113). It is precisely this argument that Ek uses to highlight as special
those forms with <i> in their orthography.
We registered five localities with the lexical term neowe as first
constituent in twelfth-century Kent. In all of them, except Newchurch, where
we have a mixed development <e/i>, the variant, exclusive in the case of
Newington (Folkestone Hd.), and predominant in the case of Newington
(Milton Hd.), Newenden (Selbrittenden Hd.) and Newnham, is <i> (see Table
2). We also registered one case with OE eow in Ifield (see Table 2) where
the i-development is exclusive. Maybe these i-reflexes from the 12th c. are
equally special to those analysed by Ek (1972) because in them eo + w > iw
is the rule.
Discarding the place-name forms compounded in their first element by a
first constituent in which eo is combined with w,1 what clearly predominates
in our 12th c. material is the e-development, even though some i- and ie-
forms are still around as possible witnesses of their original diphthongal
nature.2
3.2. SECOND ELEMENT
1 This change also happens on one occasion in which w precedes the diphthong in
question (cf. Twineneia, Tuinenea, Tuinega, Tuinga for the locality of Twinney
Creek).
2 See section 2 for an explanation to the formal diversity of Old English eo in
Kentish.
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
62
Only one Kentish locality, Tollingtrough Green, was registered for the 12th
c. with a second element that derives from an Old English term with eo, that
is, OE treow ‘tree’, a lexical element that corresponds with Ek’s first
category. This locality is in the North-western quarter of Kent and its
behaviour is the predominant mixed development <e/o> that alternates with
a rare <ui> (Tolte(n)trui c. 1100 Dom Mon; Toltintro 1178-9 P; Totingetre
1187-8 P).1
4. DISTRIBUTION OF OE EO IN FOURTEENTH-CENTURY KENT
4.1. FIRST ELEMENT
34 Kentish localities with OE eo in the first element were registered for the
14th c. Out of them, 27 present an e-development: 22 exclusively; only
Tudeley and New Hythe in a predominant way; and finally †Redemeregge,
Deerton St. and Lymbridge Green with a non-predominant distribution (see
Table 3: 14th c. Kentish place-name forms with e in the first or unique
element).
The abundant realisations with <e> (a variant that is even present in
name-forms going back to OE neowe) contrast with the behaviour observed
in the first (or unique) constituent of other seven 14th c. localities showing an
i-reflex. Five of these localities have an exclusive <i> and only in Lymbridge
Green and New Hythe is this development predominant or rare (see Table 4:
14th c. Kentish place-name forms with i in the first or unique element).
The presence of digraphs is as follows: <ay> and <ey> in Deerton St.
(see table 3); and <ye> in Tudeley (see table 3) and Lydden (Folkestone Hd.)
(Lyedene 1304 Ass; Lyeden’ 1313 Ass.). In my opinion again, we can only
admit forms with <ye> as standing for a real diphthongal pronunciation.2
1 We do not really know whether to attribute the variants ui and o for Tollingtrough
Green, as Ek (1972: 95) and Jordan-Crook (1974: §109 (2)) do, to a “shifting of
stress in OE”, or to the fact that, according to Reany, they may be an evidence of a
possible rounding of eo in Kent (1925: 343ff.). In any case, the same criterion we
use here must also be applied to the o- and u-reflexes of †Redemeregge (see Table
3).
2 See above Ek’s considerations in this respect (Ek 1972: 108 and 119-120).
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
63
With respect to OE neowe, we have 11 Kentish localities of the 14th c.
compounded in their first (or unique) element by this Anglo-Saxon lexical
constituent. As opposed to what happened in our place-name forms of the
12th c., and obviously coinciding with Luick’s opinion,1 the most frequent
development in them is e. The only exceptions are Nizel’s Heath and New
Hythe with an exclusive and a rare i-development respectively (see Table 4).
The preponderance of the e-variant is therefore much more significant in
the 14th c. than in the 12th c., even though we keep on having examples in
this century where a certain number of i-forms show their definite reluctance
to disappear, and some very sporadic digraphs (in particular the presumably
diphthongal <ye>) are still present.
4.2. SECOND ELEMENT
We only registered one Kentish locality, Ebbsfleet, for the 14th c. with a
second constituent deriving from an Old English lexical element with eo (OE
fleot ‘fleet’). Its behaviour is that of an exclusive digraph <eo>
(Hyppelesfleot 1308 Th) for which we can not assure a diphthongal
pronunciation.
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Generally, there exists a clear difference between the registers corresponding
to early Middle English and those of the 14th c. when comparing our Kentish
place-names with OE eo in the first element. In agreement with Ek’s
statement about the i-forms being much more expected in the early material
(1972: 114), we find that the frequency of e and i is similar for the 12th c.,
whereas for the 14th c., although some localities with i are still documented,
the predominant development is e.
Besides, whereas in the 12th c. we register some varied alternatives
(mainly digraphs) with a certain regularity, the end of the Middle English
period is characterised only by their very sporadic presence. On the other
1.See Ek’s quotation on Luick cited above, where despite the development [eu] >
[iu], Luick considers that <ew>was still kept in most cases (Ek 1972: 113).
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
64
hand, the scarcity of registers (only one locality per century was registered)
for the second constituent does not allow us to establish conclusive
comparisons. This fact should not however underestimate the validity of our
analysis since “the position in stressed or unstressed syllable of the word or
word-element, containing the OE eo does not affect the development of this
sound.” (Ek 1972: 66).
Likewise, with respect to the behaviour of OE eo + w in our place-name
forms, we observe here a similar tendency to the one observed in the general
analysis, that is, a much more abundant presence of the i-development in the
12th c than in the 14th c. material.
Ek concludes his South-Eastern analysis claiming that in Kent “eo […]
became io […]. This stage seems to have been reached at the latest in late
OE. In very early ME the io developed into ie.” (1972: 122). His general
table (1972: 94) seems to contradict, however, this conclusion since of all
the forms recorded in it only 15.7 % present an i-development. This
inconsistency is stressed when we centre upon the registers corresponding to
the period 1300-1500 where the percentage of i-forms only reaches 7%.
Our results do coincide with Ek’s table, and therefore also contradict in
part his own conclusion, since in our analysis the predominance the e-
variants predominate over the i-variants. The only coincidence here lies in
the fact that the i-variant appears with a higher frequency in the 12th c. than
in the 14th c., a fact that is directly connected with the peculiar development
observed for the place-name forms compounded by OE neowe.
The material LALME offers for OE eo is practically non-existent since, of
all the items recorded in the corresponding Kentish Linguistic Profiles, only
one, the Anglo-Saxon feminine pronoun heo corresponding to ModE she,
contains in its etymology the diphthong in question. This pronominal item
has traditionally been regarded as a controversial element among English
historical linguists because of the lack of unanimity on ascertaining its true
etymology.1 This fact does not make of OE heo precisely the most adequate
term with which to contrast the results provided by our analysis of eo.
1 The hypotheses that at present try to explain the modern development of an initial
palatal make reference to the nature of the original diphthong and to the peculiar
developments that this could have undergone in the Northern territories,
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
65
However, this paper is part of a dissertation in which other OE variables
were analysed and their behaviour correspondingly contrasted with the
formal diversity shown by those items of LALME that originally contained
such a variable1. Consequently, it is coherent to analyse here also the
evidence, although scanty in this case, for OE eo in LALME’s items, that is,
in SHE (< OE heo).
Forms with an i-variant (i.e., <i, y, ye>)2 in this Atlas (pre)dominate in
LPs 5890, 5900, 5940, 5960, 6050 and 9380, that is, those located in the
Northern and North-Eastern areas of the county. The LPs in which e (i.e.,
<e, ee>) is exclusive are 5881, 5970, 5980, 5990 and 9470, that is, those that
gather around the Central and Western areas of the county.3 We have to pay
heed to the fact that these registers correspond to a late Middle English stage
and, yet, we still observe in them, with all the reservations its etymological
origin may produce, a certain abundance of forms with i (<i, y, ye>). It is
therefore evident that the results provided by this Atlas do not precisely
coincide with those obtained here.
6. CONCLUSION
The most outstanding fact that we can draw as a conclusion to this paper is
that, as opposed to what we could expect, we do not seem to have among our
place-name forms the digraphs and/or diphthongs <ie, io, ye> with the
necessary frequency as to consider such realisations as characteristic of
Middle English Kent. In other words, they are very infrequent in our sources
and in this sense we can say that our corpus-data does not endorse the
traditional view.
In fact, had it not been for the frequency, specially in the 12th c., of place-
name constituents with OE eo + w (for which Jordan-Crook and Ek already
1 This is, in fact, my PhD dissertation, titled Dialectología y Toponimia del Kéntico
Bajomedieval (Universidad de La Laguna, 1999; unpublished).
2 We interpret this digraph according to Ek (1972: 95).
3 It is worth noticing the coincidence between forms with e and the palatal character
of the previous consonant (i.e., sche, schee, she), and those in which the i-reflex
combines with a previous aspirated h (i.e., hi, hy, hie). It is only occasionally that
the form he appears (LPs 5900 and 5960).
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
66
claim a special i-development), the predominance of a ‘regular’ e-variant
would have been much more significant, relegating to a second place those
digraphs/diphthongs that have traditionally been regarded as typically
Kentish.
María Auxiliadora Martín
University of La Laguna
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
67
TABLE 1: 12TH C. KENTISH PLACE-NAME FORMSWITH E IN THE FIRST
OR UNIQUE ELEMENT
OE *beoga ‘bent;
Submissive’
BECKENHAM Becceham c. 1100 Text Roff.
OE beonet ‘long and
thick grass’
BENSTED Bedenestede c. 1100 Dom Mon;
Beantesteda c. 1100 Text Roff;
de Bentested’ 1199 FineR.
OE *greon ‘grain’ GRAIN Grean c. 1100 Text Roff; Gren
1189 Reg Roff
GREATNESS Gretenersce c. 1100 Text Roff
(Arch C 44, 53)
OE greot ‘sand, gravel’
GREET de Grete 1327, 1334, 1346,
1347,1348 Subs; Griete 1304
Ass.
OE hreod ‘reed’ RIDLEY Redlege 11 DM; Riddelee 1198
FF.
NEWCHURCH Niwancirc 11 DM, Newechirche
1198 FF.
NEWENDEN
(SELBRITTENDEN HD.)
Niuuende, Niwendenne,
Niuuendene c. 1100 Dom Mon;
Newendenna 1157 StAug;
Niwendeñ 1165-6 P; Niwedeñ
1166-7 P.
NEWINGTON
(MILTON HD.)
Niwantun(e), Niuuentune c.
1100 DomMon; Newton 1172-3
P; Niweton’ 1175-6 P.
OE neowe ‘new’
NEWNHAM Newenham 1177 Reg Roff;
Niwenham 1182-4 ib
OE preosta ‘priests’ PRESTON Prestetune c. 1100 Dom Mon;
P’stune, P’st’ 1154-89 Subs.
OE *þeof ‘thief’ TUDELEY Tiuedele c. 1100 Dom Mon;
Theudelei c. 1100 Text Roff.
OE Ceol Pers. N. CHELSFIELD Cilesfeld c. 1100 Text Roff; de
Chelefeld 1176-7 P; Chelesfeld
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
68
1185-1214 Reg Roff; 1198 FF;
Chelefeld’ 1194 Cur
OE Leofa Pers. N. LEAVELAND Liofeland, Lieveland(e) c. 1100
Dom Mon; Levelande c. 1175
ArchC 4, 211; Leveland c. 1180
ib., 215; de Liveland’ 1199 Cur.
OE *Leowsa / Leofsa
Pers. N.
LEWISHAM Liofesham 11 DM; Leueseham
c. 1100 TextRoff
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
69
TABLE 2: 12TH C. KENTISH PLACE-NAME FORMS WITH I IN THE FIRST
OR UNIQUE ELEMENT
OE betweonum
‘between’
TWINNEY CREEK
Twineneia 1166-7 P; Tuinenea 1190
P; Tuinega 1191, 1192 P; Tuinga
1194 P.
OE eow ‘yew-tree’ IFIELD Iuelda c. 1100 Text Roff; Yfeld
1174-84, 1177 Reg Roff.
OE hreod ‘reed’ RIDLEY Redlege 11 DM; Riddelee 1198 FF.
NEWCHURCH Niwancirc 11 DM, Newechirche
1198 FF.
NEWENDEN
(SELBRITTENDEN HD.)
Niuuende, Niwendenne, Niuuendene
c. 1100 Dom Mon; Newendenna
1157 StAug; Niwendeñ 1165-6 P;
Niwedeñ 1166-7 P.
NEWINGTON
(FOLKESTONE HD.)
Niwan tune c. 1100 Dom Mon.
NEWINGTON
(MILTON HD.)
Niwantun(e), Niuuentune c. 1100
DomMon; Newton 1172-3 P;
Niweton’1175-6 P.
OE neowe ‘new’
NEWNHAM Newenham 1177 Reg Roff;
Niwenham 1182-4 ib.
OE *þeof ‘thief’ TUDELEY Tiuedele c. 1100 Dom Mon;
Theudelei c. 1100 Text Roff.
OE Ceol Pers. N. CHELSFIELD Cilesfeld c. 1100 Text Roff; de
Chelefeld 1176-7 P; Chelesfeld 1185-
1214 Reg Roff; 1198 FF; Chelefeld’
1194 Cur
OE Leofa Pers. N. LEAVELAND Liofeland, Lieveland(e) c. 1100 Dom
Mon; Levelande c. 1175 ArchC 4,
211; Leveland c. 1180 ib., 215; de
Liveland’ 1199 Cur.
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
70
TABLE 3: 14TH C. KENTISH PLACE-NAME FORMS WITH E IN THE FIRST
OR UNIQUE ELEMENT
BENSTED Bentestede 1312 FF; Bentsted
1316 Ipm, etc.
BENTHAM HILL de Benthame 1327 Subs; de Bent
hamme 1332, 1338 Subs; de
Benehamme 1334 Subs; Bentham
(p.) 1348 Subs.
OE beonet ‘long
and thick grass’
BENCHILL FM Cf. Phps. Will. de Benteleye 1301
FF.
BRISHING WD., B.
COURT
Bresyng 1346 FA; Bresynge 1362
Cl; Bressing’ 1368 Cl; Bressinge
Ipm.
IA breosa ‘horsefly’
BRISSENDEN Bresindenn’ 1346 Subs;
Bresyndenne 1327, 1334 Subs;
Bresynden’ 1338, 1347 Subs; de
Bresyndenn’ 1346Subs; de
Bresindene 1348 Subs.
DEPTFORD Depeford’ 1351 FF; Depford’
1313 FF; Deppeford’ 1314 FF;
Depford 1334 Fine; Depeforde
1344 FF.
OE deop ‘deep’
DIBDEN de Depedene 1310 FF; 1332
Subs; de Depeden’ 1315 FF; de
Depedene 1327 Subs; Depedenn’
1334 Subs; de Depedenne 1338
Subs; Depinden’, Depe(n)den’
(p.) 1348 Subs.
DARGETS WD. De Dergate (s. Horsted 116 E 2)
1313 Ass.
DARGATE De Dergate 1348 Subs.
OE deor ‘deer’
DEERTON ST. de Dertone 1334 Subs; de Deyr-,
Drayton’ 1338 Subs; de Dy(e)r-,
Draytone 1346 Subs; de Dyerr-,
Drayton’ 1347 Subs; de Dertone,
Drayton’ 1348 Subs.
OE hleo ‘shelter’ LYDDEN Ledene 13 StAug.
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
71
(RINGSLOW HD.)
OE hreod ‘reed’ †REDEMEREGGE Redmeregge 1301 Subs;
Rodmeregge 1323 FF; 1396 Pat;
1398 Ipm; Rodmeresregg’ 1332
Subs; Rude-merigge,
Rodemerigge 1343 Cl;
Rodmerugg 1344 Cl; Redmergge
1369 Cl; Rodemerigge 1374 FF;
Red-marerugg 1376 Pat;
Rodmerugge 1379 Cl.
NEWBURY Neuburgh 1342 Ipm; Newburgh’
1348 Subs; Newebourgh 1349
Ipm; Newburgh 1357, 1395 BM I.
NEWCOURT WD. Newecourt 1327 Subs; 1343-4
Ass; 1343-4 Ass; de Neweco(u)rt
1332, 1334, 1338 Subs;
Newecourt 1346 FA.
NEWENDEN Neuyn-, Newyndenn’ 1313 Ass;
de Newyndenne 1332 Subs; de
Newyndñ 1334 Subs, etc.
NEW HYTHE Niwehethe 1316 Cl; Newehethe
1320 FF; Neuheth 1323 Cl;
Newehethe 1325 Inq.
NEWLAND
(CALEHILL HD.)
de la Newland 1313-4 Seld 24,
195; ate Newelonde 1327 Subs,
etc.
NEWLAND (PORT OF
NEW ROMNEY)
Newelandeswall 1351Pat.
NEWLANDS Atte Newelonde 1327, 1332,
1334, 1347 Subs.
NEWNHAM FM. de Newenham 1332 Subs.
NEWSOLE FM. de Newesole 1304 Ass; 1327,
1332, 1334 Subs, etc.
OE neowe ‘new’
NEWSTREET FM. Neustrete 1327 Subs; de
Newestrete 1347 Subs.
PRESTON FM., HILL Preston’ 1377 FF; Preston 1325
Cl; 1330 Ipm; de Prestone 1332
Subs; de Preston’ 1334 Subs;
Preston 1346 FA; 1372 Cl.
OE preosta ‘priests’
PRESTON FM. de Preston’ 1348.
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
72
PRIESTWOOD,
P. GREEN
de Prestwode 1327, 1332, 1338
Subs.
OE *þeof ‘thief TUDELEY Teudele 1316, 1320 FF; 1324-5
BM I; 1324 Cl; 1327 Ipm;
Thewdele 1313 Ass; Tewedale
1316 FA; Teu-, Tyedele, Tyendale
1353 FF, etc.
OE Leofmær Pers. N. LYMBRIDGE GREEN de Lymeryng’ 1316-28 Ass; 1327
Subs; de Lemeryng’ 1334 Subs.
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
73
TABLE 4: 14TH C. KENTISH PLACE-NAME FORMS WITH I IN THE FIRST
OR UNIQUE ELEMENT
OE hleo ‘shelter’ LYDDEN VALLEY Lhydene 1313 Ass.
NEW HYTHE Niwehethe 1316 Cl;
Newehethe 1320 FF;
Neuheth 1323 Cl; Newehethe
1325 Inq.
OE neowe ‘new’
NIZEL’S HEATH
Nigheselle 1327 Subs;
Nys(h)ell’ 1332 Subs;
Nyselle 1346 Subs; Ny-,
Niselle 1347 Subs; Niselle
(p.) 1348 Subs; Nisell’ 1380
FF.
OE Heopwell Pers. N. EBBSFLEET Hyppelesfleot 1308 Th.
OE Leofwynn Pers. N. LYDDENDANE FM. de Lyuenedane 1327 Subs;
de Lyuyndan’ 1347, 1348
Subs.
OE Leofa/Leofwine
Pers. N.
†LYMBOROUGH
BOTTOM
de Lymb’gh’ 1327, 1332,
1346 Subs; de Lymbergh’
1332 Subs; Limberghe 1334
Subs, etc.
OE Leofmær Pers. N. LYMBRIDGE GREEN de Lymeryng’ 1316-28 Ass;
1327 Subs; de Lemeryng’
1334 Subs.
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
74
WORKS CITED
Arngart, Olof S. (Anderson) 1934-39: The English Hundred-Names. Vols. 1-
3. Gleerup, Lund.
Arngart, Olof S. (Anderson) 1949: Middle English Dialects. Studier i
Modern Sprakvetenskap 17: 17- 29.
Brook, George Leslie 1965 (1958): English Dialects. Andre Deutsch,
London.
Cameron, Kenneth 1961: English Place-Names. Batsford, London.
Campbell, Alistair 1959: Old English Grammar. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Copley, G. J. 1968: English Place-Names and their Origins. David &
Charles, Devon.
Ek, Karl-Gustav 1972: The Development of OE y and eo in South-Eastern
Middle English. Gleerup, Lund.
Ek, Karl-Gustav 1975: The Development of OE æ (i-mutated a) before Nasal
and OE æ in South-Eastern Middle English. Gleerup, Lund.
Ekwall, Eilert 1931: Studies on English Place- and Personal Names.
Gleerup, Lund.
Ekwall, Eilert 1980: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-
Names. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hogg, Richard M. 1992: A Grammar of Old English. Vol. I: Phonology.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Jordan, Richard 1974: Handbook of Middle English Grammar: Phonology.
[translated and revised by Eugene J. Crook]. Mouton, The Hague.
Kristensson, Gillis 1967: A Survey of Middle English Dialects 1290-1350:
The Six Northern Counties and Lincolnshire. Gleerup, Lund.
Kristensson, Gillis 1987: A Survey of Middle English Dialects 1290-1350:
The West Midland Counties. Gleerup, Lund.
Kristensson, Gillis 1995: A Survey of Middle English Dialects 1290-1350:
The East Midland Counties. Wallin & Dalholm Boktr AB, Lund.
Old Elglish eo in Middle Kentish Place-names
75
Kristensson, Gillis 2001: A Survey of Middle English Dialects 1290-1350.
The Southern Counties. I. Vowels (except Diphthongs). Lund
University Press, Lund.
Luick, Karl 1914/1941: Historische Grammatik der Englischen Sprache.
Tauchnitz, Stuttgart.
McIntosh, Angus, Michael L. Samuels, Michael Benskin, Margaret Laing
and Keith Williamson 1986: A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval
English. 4 vols. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen.
Moore, Samuel, Sandford B. Meech and Harold Whitehall 1935: Middle
English Dialect Characteristics and dialect Boundaries. Language and
Literature. University of Michigan Publications, Ann Arbor.
Mossé, Fernand 1952: A Handbook of Middle English. [tr. J.A. Walker]. The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Reany, Percy H. 1925: On Certain Phonological Features of the Dialect of
London in the Twelfth Century. Englische Studien 59: 321-45.
Reany, Percy H. 1964. The Origin of English Place-Names. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Serjeantson, Mary S. 1922: The Dialectal Distribution of Certain
Phonological Features in Middle English. English Studies 4: 93-109,
191-98.
Serjeantson, Mary S. 1924: Distributions of Dialect Characters in Middle
English. Amsterdam [No indication of publisher]
Serjeantson, Mary S. 1927a: The Dialects of the West Midlands in Middle
English. Review of English Studies 3: 54-67, 186-203, 319-31.
Serjeantson, Mary S. 1927b: The Development of Old English eag, eah in
Middle English. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 26: 198-
225 and 350-400.
Smith, A. H. 1956: English Place-Name Elements. 2 vols. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Thuresson, Bertil. 1950: Middle English Occupational Terms. Lund
University Press, Lund.
Mª Auxiliadora Martín
76
Wallenberg, J. K. 1934: The Place-Names of Kent. Appelbergs Boktryckerei
Aktiebolag, Uppsala.
Wyld, Henry C. 1921: South-Eastern and South-East Midland Dialects in
Middle English. Essays and Studies 6: 112-145.
Wyld, Henry C. 1927: A Short History of English (3rd edn.). John Murray,
London.
* † *