@Stanmund:

Another thought......speaking of the Danelaw and Scandinavian sway, maybe the name Ing(e)los(s)(e) is 'ing(e)l + os(s)', where 'Ingel/Ingle/Ingl means "Tribute to Ing" (O.N. Ingialdr) + O.E. os (O.N. áss) meaning 'god, divine, deity'.

So, loosely, "A tribute to the Germanic god Ing".

@Stanmund:

"Ing", I do not think, is the same as "end". The earliest writing of the surname "Ingelose" (Inge+lose), (Ingel-ose), or (Ing +gelose) doesn't bear that out at all. Cf. the name Ingelhouse/ Inglehouse which is also from Ing(e)loss. 'oss(e) might've been some mispoken form of house (no 'h'). So, Ingeloss (Ingle's/ Ingel's House).

The Old Norse for 'end' (O.E. ende) is 'endir'. So, the Norse (Danes, Norwegians) and the Anglo-Saxons said the word the same way.

I believe 'Ing' is truly Ing (Yngvi, Ingwine), meaning the Germanic god. Ingui(n)-Frēa is O.E. for Yngvi-Freyr, so the way they would have said Ing is the same, too.

Don't forget the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poems first line:

"Ing wæs ærest mid Est-Denum gesewan secgum..." (loosely-Ing was first among the East Danes seen by (English)men).

Even though, Ing being among the Anglo-Saxon pantheon is still in question, the fact that Norfolk was in the Danelaw allows for the thought of Ing in Ænglisc.

@Stanmund: NEW

The surname seems to be from Ingloss Manor near Loddon. The manor of Abby was held by a family with the surname Inglose/ Ingloss. They were from Loddon Inglose (Ingloss), Norfolk. They were knights.

It seems this surname has been spelled 'de Ingelose' (late 12th c), Ingelose (c.1275), Inggelose (abt. 1346), Ingloss, Inglose, Inglosse, Inglos, even Englisse and Inglish. There was a coat-of-arms which was a silver Blazon, a bend between two cotisses (bendlets), and a sable. Further, it had "Gu. three bars gemmels or, on a canton ar. five billets".

See "Encyclopædia of heraldry: or General armory of England, Scotland, and Ireland"
by John Burke, Sir John Bernard Burke for more info.

@Stanmund:

I do not think that "Endloss" and "Ingloss" come from personal names. I think it more likely that "Endloss" means something akin to "an area not lived on" or maybe "a destructed area" (maybe the village was found after a war?). If "-less" is meant, then it might mean "land that goes on forever (as far as the eye can see)".

In the same way, "Ingloss" could mean "an area without Ing (either Ing cant reach it, or Ing forsook it), or it might mean "an area laid to waste (destroyed) by Ing).

The full name that was in the link was "Endloss-Ditton". "Ditton" (also Dixton) is the Anglo-Saxon word 'dyketon' (O.E. dīctūn, dike/ditch farm,settlement,village) (settlement on the dike or ditch, ditch/dike settlement), in other words, 'towns enclosed by a dike'. See Fen Ditton (Wetland by the/a Ditch/Dike) and Wood Ditton (Woods by the Ditch/Dike) in Cambridgeshire.

I don't think the meanings are any deeper than this. Do you have any writings about Endloss Ditton, other than the Wikipedia link?

@Stanmund:

The "loo' in Waterloo is from Middle Dutch lo(o) "forest, thicket, woods, meadow", from Proto-Germanic *lauhō (“meadow”). Cf. O.E lēah (lea, leigh, ley, ly) "forest clearing", Old Saxon lōh "forest, grove", Old High German lōh "covered clearing, low bushes", Old Norse lō "clearing, meadow".

It is not related loss or less. Loos is the plural of loo (Old Dutch *lōs).

@Stanmund:

The names could be put together with 'end' + 'loss'.

End: O.E. ende (area, end, bordermark, share of a town, the froward side). It lives on in names like "Boyden-End" in Suffolk, England, and "East End of London", "West End of London".

Loss: O.E. los (to die, destruction, to be lost). Modern 'loss' came from 'lost' (O.E. lēosan). This meaning is in today's word forlorn ( O.E. forlēosan).

or

Less: O.E. lǣs, lēas (free from, without, lacking, bare, not lived on; also small, younger). Compare 'lawless', 'bottomless', 'careless', asf.

End and Ing are not alike. Compare 'Ingthorpe' in Rutland (lmaybe 'Ing's Village'). "Ing" likely means Ing ( Yngvi-Freyr) or the Ingaevones (Folks of Ing, Ynglingas).

Ing wæs ærest mid Est-Denum
Gesewen secgum, oþ he siððan est
Ofer wæg gewat; wæn æfter ran;
Þus heardingas þone hæle nemdun.

* from George Hicks, The Old English Rune Poem, 1705 (from an 8/9 c. writing).

More about "progressive form" and Cletic: "...neighboring Celtic languages may have had an influence..."

What I mean here is that the I think it is likely that the frequency of the continuous verb form in English was influenced by neighboring Celtic tongues, not the grammar structure itself.

Ich wollte nur meinen Standpunkt verdeutlichen. Danke!

@jayles: "...will/would is how on earth did it acquire the frequentative meaning like "used to..."

Well, Academia was at it again...messing up the English tongue! The 17th English rules were really (really) bad for 'will' and 'shall', and even worse for 'would' and 'should'. 'Would' and 'Should' are very flexible indeed! There are no hard and fast rules for them.

For the benefit of all: a frequentative word is a word that marks repeated action.

One of the many varied, unregulated uses of 'would' is to mark habitual action. Don't forget "would" can also behave as the past tense of 'will'. The blending of these two ideas allows a sentence like, "As a child I would walk to school every day" to be written and spoken in English.

@jayles: I see. Abridged....

For the record, 'will/would' is Germanic. German 'werden' is the same as English 'worth' (from O.E. weorðan)---"woe worth the man/day"...asf. Both verbs are from P.Gmc. *werþanan (cf. Gothic wairþan, Old Norse verða, Swedish Varda).

The future in Dutch (zullen (shall, should)) "Het zal niet werken"; in Danish (skulle (shall,should, must) "det skal nok gå bra"; Icelandic (skulu) "Þú skalt sjá!". All Germanic languages (including Gothic) make the future tense with auxiliary verbs.

I digress....

Two things happened to influence the popularity of 'werden': 1. Latin was being replaced as the preferred written tongue and 2) German writers wanted to precisely express tense and voice in German. The verb 'wollen' was used a lot for the future action up until about 1700.

The use of 'werden' as THE future auxiliary happened in Middle High German. The construction WERDEN + infinitve happened around 1800. In Old High German, 'werden' was used mainly for the beginning of an action, state, or happening. In Old High German, 'sollen' (shall), 'wollen' (will, want, desire), and 'müssen' (must, need to, have to) WERE used to express happenings in the future.

In modern German (especially in the South), we do like to use the form: "Ich würde lieber warten" (I would rather wait), "Da würde ich nicht drauf wetten" (I wouldn't bet on it). The words 'would' and 'würde' can have the same usage.

You might like reading a more in depth treatment of this subject. I recommend, 'Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work' by Björn Hansen, Ferdinand de Haan, and "Die werden-Perspektive und die werden-Periphrasen im Deutschen: Historische Entwicklung und Funktionen in der Gegenwartssprache" by Michail L Kotin.

Now, why 'will' in English and not "werden"? It goes back to...tadaaaa! ACADEMIA and the Church. Old English did not have a separate future tense--- present and future were grammatically one. The reason shall and will became auxiliaries to mean the future came about in the fourteenth century as schools were having their students translate the Latin Bible (due to John Wycliffe's sway). Schools to taught students to use 'will' to translate Latin volo, velle; 'shall' has no Latin equivalent, so it was used arbitrarily for the Latin future tense. And, that is the abridged version of why 'will' is used in English instead of 'werden'.

Viel Spaß!

Intransitive verbs are the only English verbs that can use their past participles as adjectives; 'swollen' and 'drunken' are Germanic verb past.parts, like eaten (O.E. geeten) and beaten (O.E. gebēaten), where the original was formed with the "ge-" prefix .

swollen (uninflected adj., past. part of swell) O.E. "genog". Compare Goth ganohs, ON gnogr, OSax genoh, genóg, O.Fris. enoch, Ger. genug, Dutch genoeg -> P.Gmc. *ganakh, *ganōgaz < *ga-(ge-) and *nakh, *nōgaz).

New Middle English Verb Form

Grown Up (early 16th c., past. part. 'grown' of 'grow' ,OE pp. gegrōwen, + 'up') This is form comes from the new type of verb form (two-part or separable verbal expression, use of adverbial particles) brought about at the on-set of Middle English . This verb-type replaced the use of Old English prefixes like "ge-".

English uses has or have with a past participle to describe an action that started in the past and is (or may be) still going on.

"I worked here for two years." (implies no longer working, focused on the past action)/ "I have worked here for two years." (implies still working, focuses on "I", the doer, because of have)

"I had this before". (did have)/ "I have had this before." (having it again)

The 'continuous verb form' (or progressive aspect if one likes) is found in many tongues (Dutch, Welsh, Icelandic, etc), and is widely taken as 'locative'. Only about 4% of all American English, and 3% of British English, sentences contain the progressive (continuous) form today.

"He was a-working" was one way to make the "progressive", but has since fallen out of favor for the form "He is working." (i.e. in the process of).

There is a synchronic, but no diachronic, debate about its the form's origin in English. A guy named Lockwood hypothesized that the progressive form in English was a calque from Celtic, but it has yet to been borne out as true.

OE, among all of the other early Germanic tongues, had the most developed progressive system. Old English use '-ende' (today, '-ing') to make the 'progressive', usually in translations from Latin.

I believe, based on what I have read, that O.E. had the progressive form. It was not used as much as it is today. It isn't unlikely, though, that neighboring Celtic languages may have had an influence, but I currently don't think, based on the evidence, that Old English borrowed this verb form from any Celtic tongue. Here is a good paper on the subject: http://icame.uib.no/ij18/elsness.pdf