[tied] Re: Vanir,etc.

From: tgpedersen
Message: 29565
Date: 2004-01-14

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:55 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Vanir,etc.
>
>
> > > I remember you that Proto-Germanic has /*ansuz/, "a k. of
divine or
> > > semi-divine being". So we cannot match it with a form /as/ that
> > > almost certainly had no ancient nasal at all. It is chance
> > > resemblance.
> > >
> >
> > Which is a reconstruction. I think the Germanic forms with -n-
are a
> > hypercorrection.
>
> Absolute nonsense. OE o:s-, ON ás-, OHG ans- unabbiguously point to
*ans-
> and to nothing else. The only reason for your thinking that the -n-
is a
> "hypercorrection" is that otherwise you can't match the Germanic
word with
> "as-". For anybody else it would be a sufficient reason for
abandoning the
> comparison, but you prefer to follow the method worked out by
Procrustes the
> highwayman: "If they don't fit, stretch 'em."
>

Or it might be a case of homophonous words.

So how would you resolve the problem of people suddenly swarming out
of Thuringia, carrying Roman weapons, bearers of a culture that can't
be totally matched to its immediate Jastorf predecessor? No
Procrustes methods, please.

Torsten