Christopher D King PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

Appendix B: pool
collection of occurrences of p in OE.
28. A charter from Pendock (a) is not cited in the MCOE for
pool, perhaps because it shares the bounds which it describes with
another document, which is there cited. But the two are quite different
charters of different dates. Given that the boundaries remained the
same, then that the two charters should appeal to the same landmarks
is only to be expected, a circumstance moreover which does not stop
the two boundary-clauses from exhibiting some
different linguistic
forms, including variance over the grammatical case of pool,, though
not over the phonology of the root. They are in fact different
occurrences of the word in separate charters and both documents will
be included in our sample.
The last four cases are to be found in the boundary-clause of a
charter from the Teme Valley (a) which seems to have been
overlooked for the MCOE.
The foregoing eleven cases of pool in four documents are
incorporated into our sample.
be invalid.
29. However, four of the occurrences thus collected seem to
A charter from Micheldever is cited by the MCOE, following
Birch, for four cases of . But two of these (§1: 7) are amended
by Grundy (p. 234) to .
A charter from near Stow on the Wold is cited for two cases
of which occur in Birch but seem to be an error for .
The foregoing cases will henceforward be left out of
consideration, leaving a final sample of 166 valid forms from OE texts.
30. The geographical distribution of simplex cases of pool in
OE texts may be understood by the abstraction of coherent, potentially
dialectal variant forms. Diversely spelt occurrences can be ascribed to
the dialectal forms pö 1, pu 11 and py 11.
31. The credentials of pi 11 in OE are very doubtful. It occurs
only in corrupt texts full of ME forms. The truth seems to be that it is
related to pyl1 by the relatively late independent soundchange of
349