[99] If I have interpreted his meaning correctly. But I admit that I have had great difficulty in understanding the argument in paragraph 5 of p. [263] (especially the "mit -h-" of line 12).
[100] Prof. Morsbach seems to regard Kentish as exceptional in its treatment of intervocalic h, rather than in that of postconsonantal h. I am not quite clear as to his reason for this.
[101] Cf. Studies in Old English, p. 240.
[102] This text represents a more primitive type of glossary than the others and, though it is not an ancestor of theirs, it has without doubt used a considerable number of the same glosses (especially in Sweet's § XLV) which were incorporated in their archetype.
[103] The form scanomodu on the solidus need not be taken into account. It is improbable that coins of this type were minted after the sixth century.
[104] Prof. Morsbach further argues that even if my interpretation of unneg was correct it would prove nothing, since -u was probably lost after a long 'nebentonig' syllable earlier than after a long 'haupttonig' syllable. But neither the -gar of the Bewcastle inscription (cf. p. [70]) nor the felt of the East Saxon charter can be admitted as evidence for this hypothesis.
[105] In spite of what is said by Prof. Morsbach (p. [264] f.) these forms are scarcely intelligible unless h was already lost.
[106] E.g. perhaps flod u(p)ahof.
[107] The place-name Wihtgarabyrg in the Saxon Chronicle, ann. 530 (B, C), 544 (A, B, C) is more probably to be regarded as a corruption of Wihtwara- through the influence of the personal name Wihtgar.
[108] Prof. Morsbach's explanation is that felt here is a long nebentonig syllable. But we have no evidence that the influence of 'sentence-accent' made itself felt in this way.