[tied] Re: Vanir,etc.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marco Moretti" <marcomoretti69@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:28 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Vanir,etc.
>
>
> > I consider Anglo-Saxon /wanum/ "bright", that must be ancient and

non-

> > IE. It's a rare word, but I think it's suitable.
>
> An argument based on a hapax is inherently weak. (Not to mention the
> suspicion that the word is a figment. Although I happen to teach

OE, I'm not

> aware of <wanum> [presumably dat.pl.] 'bright'. Can you offer a

reference?)

> If I were to compare the name of the Vanir with known Germanic

words, I'd

> suggest a connection with *wana- 'deficient, lacking, incompletely

formed'

> (seems OK for a family of gods considered inferior). That word is

at least

> well attested in all the subbranches of Germanic.

I found this word quoted on an Italian encyclopedia (UTET). I have at
this moment no other reference, but I'll do a deep survey as soon as
possible. My work has nothing to do with linguistics (alas!) and I
have little time when I'm working. Being an apax legomenon,
this /wanum/ is also very hard to find.

> > So I'm oriented on
> > the semantic sphere of "light", "divinity". It's better than
> > Torsten's comparison because it is based on a real, existing

Germanic

> > word without any credible IE connection.
>
> If the word is so insecure (I'm not convinced it's real; see

above), how can

> you know anything about its etymological connections?

It's only an attempt, I only say that it's more probable and
compatible with good sense and logic than Torsten's delirous
arguments. It would fit well if it were true.

> > The singular was surely /*waniz/, not /*wanaz/, because -ir is an
> > ending for the -i- stems (IE *-ejes).
>
> Marco, you tend to use words like "must" and "surely" for

rhetorical effect

> where the evidence doesn't warrant certainty. Germanic -i-stem

plurals do

> not guarantee -i-stem singulars. Names of ethnic groups (e.g. ON

Danir, OE

> Dene) and other collective appellations (cf. OE ylde 'men',

ylfe 'elves',

> etc.) often had the form of -i-stem plurals no matter what their

underlying

> lexical base. I suppose original collectives in *-ija- (related

e.g. to

> Slavic *-Ije) and plural forms of *-i-stems (with *-ij- < *-ej-)

fell

> together in Germanic (compare OE le:ode and Slavic *ljudIje 'people
> [coll.]'). Ethnonymic *-i:z was simply a kind of collective suffix.

It tells

> us virtually nothing about the declension of the corresponding

singular. Cf.

> OE Ro:mware 'the Romans', Cantware 'the Kentish people' but sg.

<waru> (a

> feminine o:-stem). Martin Huld has recently argued -- very

convincingly --

> that the Aesir stem was also a strong masculine (*ansa-z) in the

singular.

I know something of the collective forms you quoted. Even in Gothic
recent loanwords such as /aggilus/ "angel" this pattern is used:
pl. /aggeleis/ (-gg- is read -ng-, -ei- is -i:-).
The form /*ansu-z/ accounts for genitive sing. in /-ar/ (not in /-s/
as in /a/ stems, as far I know); in the same way, the singular of
Vanir is Vanr, and a genitive in -s doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong
and I don't remember well the Old Norse forms, but the hypothesis
that these stems belong to the /a/ declension is feeble.

> > I'm not so sure of a direct connection with Greek /(w)anakt-/ but

it

> > looks good and quite probable.
>
> Well, I'd say it's neither good nor probable. I've never heard of

Gk.

> (w)anakt- being connected with brightness.

Once again it's only an idea.

Regards

Marco