Re: [tied] Re: Vanir

From: João S. Lopes Filho
Message: 11282
Date: 2001-11-19

This is solve the problem. So, *wanaz < *wonos
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Vanir

I repeat (since I have already explained this) and expand a little: the correct singular is Vanr (actually used of of Njörd), declined like an ordinary a-stem masculine (which it is: *wanaz). The plural in -ir is neither irregular nor analogical but reflects a Germanic _collective_ (like ON Danir 'the Danes' and several other tribal nouns, or OE Engle, etc.), behaving like an i-stem (-ir < *-i:z < *-ijiz). In ON the collective suffix did not trigger palatal umlaut in the root (though it often did in OE). Some ethnonyms could have both a normal plural and a "collective plural", e.g. ON Húnar/Húnir or OE Seaxan/Seaxe.
 
Hope this helps and stops that Wagnerian speculation.
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Vanir

I think *Wagn- would give Vagn- or Vakk-, nor Vanir.

And my question remains: what is the Germanic form of  Vanir? what´s its
singular?

*Wanaz - Vann, pl. Vanar (maybe pl. Vanir due analogy with Aesir)
*Waniz - Venn, pl. Venir
*Wanuz - Vo,nn pl. Vanir

What´s the correct declination of