# ǽge, island, eye, egg, sea, ovum



## lz89z1

In Old Anglo-Saxon you will find that the word for island is ǽge. Which you can recognize in German as Auge or in Dutch as Oog. And still you can see this in the names of Dutch and German Island names like Schiermonnikoog and Wangerauge. So obvious the shape of an eye became the word for island. Even in Scandinavian language it is recognizable in the name of the old viking age trading town Birka on the island Björkö (literally: "Birch Island"). And even English itself; it does not write eye-land, but that is for sure the pronunciation.

But than it is to be realized that 'ǽg' has also the meaning of water, sea. Think of ǽgir, the Norse mythology sea giant.  Could it be that the meaning for sea is derived from ǽge in the meaning of island? That those proto-indo-germans that would become eventually the AngloSaxons learned deep inside Europe the islands in the rivers with eye shapes and when they wandered up North and arrived at the sea and saw all that water with all those islands, that they gave the sea the name 'ǽg' as well?  

And is it then a coincidence that the Anglo-Saxon word for egg was also ǽg? Everything related to the form/shape of the eye? Is it a coincidence that in latin an egg is called ovum? That for sure must have a relation with the form/shape  Or the other way arround of course

And lastly... what about forming your mouth to an oval shape and try to make sound.... doesn't that sound like 'ǽ'? 

Is it possible that 'ǽg' in the meaning of egg is the oldest word in Proto-Anglo-Saxon (PAS), named after the shape of the mouth and the sound that you then will make? That after that those PAS-guys thought that eyes are egg-shaped and thus started using the same word for that? And then thought that islands usually have the same shape as an egg or eye and starting to use 'ǽg' for that as well?
And is Latin confirming that subjects can be named because of their shape? 
And one conclusion further that names of subjects even relate to the sound made when producing the shape with you lips?
Then 'ǽg' must be a very old word....


Comments welcome.


----------



## Treaty

PAS (which I assume you mean Proto-Germanic - PG) is a descendant of Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Below is the etymology of the three words:

Eye < PG *augon < PIE *okʷ- (Greek-loan optic)
Egg < PG *ajja- < PIE *owio- (> Latin ovum)
Island < PG *axwjo- or *axwo- < latter from PIE *akʷ- (> Latin aqua)

Apparently, there is no relationship between them (unless PIE *akʷ- and *okʷ- were related at some time).


----------



## Stoggler

I thought the Old English word for island was īeġ rather than ǽge.


----------



## berndf

First, there is the issue of the palatalised _g_=/ɣ/ = [ʝ] that merged with /j/. This produced the similarity between OE _eage_ (_eye_) and _ieg_ (_island_). Only the <g> in _eage_ is a true etymological _g_. The phonemes spelled <g> in _ieg_ (_island_) and _æg _(_egg_) are etymological /j/s. So _Auge, eye _(_<eage_)_, Oog_ is a completely different matter. The _g_ in these Germanic words is a regular correspondent to the /k/ in Latin _oculus_.

This leaves only _ieg_ (_island_) and _æg _(_egg_) looking similar.

Now, if we compare _æg _e.g. to its German cognate _Aue _(land by a river), the relation to PGm *_ahwo_ = flowing water > German _Ache_ becomes apparent and _*ahwo_ is the regular correspondent to Latin _aqua_.

So, there is no relation between _eye, island_ and_ egg_.


----------



## berndf

Stoggler said:


> I thought the Old English word for island was īeġ rather than ǽge.


Bosworth-Toller has ig or _æge _for island. It has also _æg _meaning all three, _water, water land_ and _island_. This further confirms the relation to German _Ache _and _Aue _and hence to Latin _aqua_.


----------



## Stoggler

berndf said:


> Bosworth-Toller has ig or _æge _for island. It has also _æg _meaning all three, _water, water land_ and _island_. This further confirms the relation to German _Ache _and _Aue _and hence to Latin _aqua_.



I should have checked my old favourite B+T


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> (unless PIE *akʷ- and *okʷ- were related at some time).



According to the currently fashionable three-laryngeal theory (Leiden school) the word for “eye” has initial h3, while the word for “water” has h2. This would mean that they cannot be cognate.


----------



## lz89z1

What I am missing in any of the responses is a reply on the real message of my questions... Can words have a relation to the shape of the subject it represents?  
I recently read an article about the origin of the name Phoenicians. And belief it or not, it was very plausible explained that the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple" all relate to the same meaning. Which was in this case the boiling to obtain the dye for purple! (Michael C. Astour, The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4, Erich F. Schmidt Memorial Issue. Part Two (Oct., 1965), pp. 346-350)

So anyone that can confirm in this the relation between egg, eye and island in Anglo-Saxon (æg, æge and æg) (and indeed, my reference is bosworth) can be based on the similar shape?


----------



## berndf

lz89z1 said:


> So anyone that can confirm in this the relation between egg, eye and island in Anglo-Saxon (æg, æge and æg) (and indeed, my reference is bosworth) can be based on the similar shape?


Well, the short answer is: no. There is no such relation in these three words. Similarly in outcome of a long evolution of words cannot be taken as evidence of a common root. The origins of these words, as far as they can be traced back with some degree of confidence, are very different; both semantically and phonetically.


----------



## Toby Le Rhône

The thing you're missing is that the Anglo-Saxons did not come up with these sounds or words.   They did not look at an egg, island, eye and make a new word.  They are not Germanic coinages.  These words were inherited from PIE - they existed before any Germanic people made observations based on shapes.

If there are any observation-based coinages for these three words, it would've happened before the Proto-Germanic stage.


----------



## Dib

lz89z1 said:


> What I am missing in any of the responses is a reply on the real message of my questions... Can words have a relation to the shape of the subject it represents?



In general, they can. "Window" comes from a compound that meant "wind-eye" (Old Norse "vind-auga"), for example. But, as others have pointed out before - all the available data considered together, the 3 words you quoted (egg, island, eye) don't seem to represent any such connection.


----------



## lz89z1

Dib said:


> In general, they can. "Window" comes from a compound that meant "wind-eye" (Old Norse "vind-auga"), for example. But, as others have pointed out before - all the available data considered together, the 3 words you quoted (egg, island, eye) don't seem to represent any such connection.



Fair enough. And great example I might say. 

So any relationship between the three, can't be explained from each individual presumed PIE origin. Now, no matter how clever and scientific all those PIE words are, nobody has ever seen them for real written on a stone or so. But as I never had the education to learn all of the good PIE stuff, I just have to consider it as truth. And that is what I do. Nevertheless, all the subjects representing egg, island and eye do have the same shape, and are presented in Old Saxon with similar words.  From scientific point of view that is just coincidence. Ok.

By the way, the Anglo Saxon word 'holm' has the same strange process that we can see from the Anglo Saxon word 'ǽge'. Both originally representing high and dry land, later on, they get both the meaning of sea, water...: 
es; _m._ _A mound, hill, rising ground;_ but in this sense, which belongs to the word in the Old Saxon, it is not found in English. I. Its most common use in the latter, in the poetry, is in reference to water with the meaning _wave, ocean, water, sea_ Freá engla héht wesan wæter gemǽne ðá stód hraðe holm under heofonum síd ætsomne _the lord of angels bade the waters be together, then quickly stood ocean under heaven far-stretching continuously,_ Cd. 8; Th. (Source)

Changing the meaning of a word, can that be explained from having knowledge of PIE? Or any other science?


----------



## lz89z1

fdb said:


> According to the currently fashionable three-laryngeal theory (Leiden school) the word for “eye” has initial h3, while the word for “water” has h2. This would mean that they cannot be cognate.



Unfortunately I am not able to understand this. I do am very interested, but i have a terrible lack of real knowledge on this. Is there a way to explain to me in simple words?


----------



## berndf

lz89z1 said:


> Unfortunately I am not able to understand this. I do am very interested, but i have a terrible lack of real knowledge on this. Is there a way to explain to me in simple words?


Indo-Europeanist agree that there must have existed at least two, the Leiden School says three, laryngeal sounds that were lost in all attested descent languages but which left a trace on surrounding vowels. The exact sound values cannot be reconstructed but it can be reconstructed which of the three must have occurred where. Because we don't know these sounds they are simply called h1, h2 and h3.

For a start you can read the Wikipedia article on _Laryngeal theory_.


----------



## sotos

lz89z1 said:


> Can words have a relation to the shape of the subject it represents?


It seems so, and this has been put under scientific scrutiny first by S. Freud. 

You missed out the Greek connection. The Gr. root aeg- (αιγ-) is related to the sea and water (e.g. αιγιαλός = seashore, καταιγίς = storm, heavy rain). The relation between egg and eye should be  obvious. The relation is not only the shape but also that between life and vision. Compare with the english "bead" as "eye".  I don't believe that about islands and eyes. Must be a coinsidence.

For Phoenicians and red you may start another thread.


----------



## lz89z1

Thanks berndf! Much obliged.


----------



## lz89z1

Thans sotos! Equally apreciated


----------



## djmc

All this sounds very like the theory of the origin of words put forwards and refuted in Plato's *Cratylus.* I am not convinced that there is any evidence that there was much theory behind the creation of words, and that a resemblance between two words means that the things signified bear any relationship.


----------



## lz89z1

djmc said:


> All this sounds very like the theory of the origin of words put forwards and refuted in Plato's *Cratylus.* I am not convinced that there is any evidence that there was much theory behind the creation of words, and that a resemblance between two words means that the things signified bear any relationship.



Seems very hard to provide evidence, Only if there are 100s more examples than what I started with. Sounds like a study. Anyone?


----------

