Talk:Etymology of Edinburgh

Edinburgh High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Etymology

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

Edwin's Fort

The etymology tracing the name of Edinburgh to Edwin of Northumbria is an outdated idea. It was pretty common in the 19th century, but since the 20th century it has been widely accepted that the name is of Brythonic origin. The "Edwin's Fort" etymology does still appear in some modern sources, especially those that aren't on toponymy (or Edinburgh) but it's almost exclusively in passing.
The point is, we can't act as if this a currently accepted etymology when it's not. If we include it it needs to be with the proper caveats about the current consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunedin?

Should not the name Dunedin be mentioned in the lead?LothianLiz (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Dunedin?

Stuart Harris in his, "The Place Names of Edinburgh", declares the "Edwinesburh" form to be a "palpable fake". It's all very well for a deputy city architect writing in the 1990s to come to this conclusion which then finds its way onto Wikipedia, but can anyone out there explain to me why, if the Angles anglicised the original Old Welsh name, they didn't change it more radically to obliterate the association with the past? Why leave an etymological confusion to posterity? Was it because the Gaels kept the original name alive, but in its Gaelic form? In the Holyrood Abbey charter, which contains the first mention of Edinburgh as a royal burgh, David I refers to "de meo Burgo de Edwinesburg". Was he suffering from a misapprehension, or perpetuating a deliberate fraud? Were the mischievous English monks of Holyrood behind this etymological sleight-of-hand? Or, could the current consensus mentioned above be a modern revisionism inspired by Scottish nationalist sentiment, i.e. chuck out any possible derivation from the English kingdom of Northumbria and replace it with a more Scottish-sounding term? Kim Traynor (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Harris gives the answer to, at least, some of these questions. He writes, "All these forms use Eidyn as a proper name, and the same is true of the later versions made for the invading groups of Anglians and Gaelic-speaking Scots, typified in the note ' Dunedene, which is in English Edineburg ' given in the ninth-century Life of St Monenna: For while British din could be translated (no doubt, as usually happens in such circumstances, by conquered Britons for the benefit of new overlords) as equivalent to Anglian burh or Gaelic dun, it is evident that Eidyn had to be left untranslated."

The incoming Angles and Scots would simply want to know from the Britons what they called their settlement. It does not follow that the Angles would want to change the name more radically or that they would wish to obliterate it and it is doubtful if any thought of leaving an "etymological confusion to posterity" would come into question. The quotation from the Life of St Monenna shows that the two forms, Dunedene and Edineburg, co-existed - both with the Edin form of the name.

As far as "mischievous English monks" are concerned, there was a short-lived attempt for about thirty years in the first half of the 12th century, in documents written by English monks, to change the spelling to the Edwin form. 77.99.105.125 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a good explanation. Kim Traynor 15:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)