View Message

Philologically, his assessment is flawed. It's more likely that a name Bad- would shift to Bod- (as in Norse and English dialects), not the other way around. In Northumbrian we have éa from Gmc eu, but then the form should be Béadwin/BéadEwin, not BeadUwin, and hardly explains Baud- or Bad- for Beud- (here we should also read éa as an é-a dipthong, with "back" a nearly indistinguishable from the o of the other English dialects anyway, not the normal OE representation of the ǽ-a dipthong). I also think he is in error if he says names such as Bodo are "from" an element Beud-. They are cognate, certainly, but substantives "bod" command/message, "bodo" messenger are not formed "from" a verb *beutan "command, offer, invite", that would be *beudaz, Goth biuþs/biud-, ON bjōðr, OE bēod, OHG. beot "table", in plural "dishes, plates", i.e. "offerings". Onomastically it is of course impossible to distinguish whether biud- represents biudan or biud- etc.; nor bod/bot "message" from bodo/boto "messenger". That's merely the whim of the modern interpreter.