--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>
> At 4:54:18 AM on Monday, January 10, 2011, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >> At 5:25:30 AM on Friday, January 7, 2011, Torsten wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 5:17:40 AM on Thursday, January 6, 2011, Torsten
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>> So it seems that whatever the origin, the suffix was
> >>>>> there from the beginning.
>
> >>>> That was, indeed, the point. But the specific form that
> >>>> it takes in German definitely appears to be influenced
> >>>> by the 'king' word.
>
> >>> Definitely, except you seem to have forgotten that
> >>> *-ri:k was not a 'free word' in Germanic. There is no
> >>> Germanic *ri:k- "king".
>
> >> It's directly reflected only in Goth. <reiks>, but it
> >> certainly existed.
>
> > Odd, given the size of those other corpuses.
>
> The OSax. and OE corpora aren't really very large. But I
> don't think that that's the reason for the lack of
> attestation. Rather, it appears to me that the root noun
> simply went out of use very early.
>
> In PCelt. we have a masc. athematic noun *rīg- 'ruler' (OIr.
> <rÃ, rÃg->; Gaul. <-rÄ«x, -rÄ«g-> in names recorded by Caesar)
> and a neuter yo-stem *rÄ«giom 'kingdom' (OIr. <rÃge>
> 'kingship; kingdom'). (The athematic noun is also found in
> the Celtiberian personal name <Teiuoreikis>, apparently
> < *dÄ"wo-rÄ«ks < *deiwo-rÄ"ks.)
>
> These were borrowed into PGmc. as *rīk- 'ruler' (Goth.
> <reiks>, a masc. root noun in the process of being
> transferred to the a-stem declension) and *rÄ«kijÄ
'kingdom'
> (Goth. <reiki>, ON <rÃki>, OE <rÄ«Äe>, OFris. <rÄ«ke>, OSax.
> <rÄ«ki>, OHG <rÄ«hhi>). A ja-/jÅ-stem adjective *rÄ«k-ija/Å-
> 'mighty, powerful; rich' is also found throughout the
> family: Goth. <reikeis>, ON <rÃkr>, OE <rÄ«Äe>, OFris.
> <rīke>; OSax. <rīki>; OHG <rīche>; there is some evidence in
> Gaulish personal names for the corresponding PCelt.
> adjective, so I shouldn't be surprised if this was also
> borrowed, but it could certainly also be denominal from
> *rīkz. Judging by their distribution, the other members
> of this word family are later derivatives.
>
> We have a variety of weak verbs: OE <rīcsian> 'to rule' and
> OHG <rÄ«hhison>, representing *rÄ«k-isÅ- (in OE with
> characteristic addition of *-jan-), Goth. <reikinÅn> 'to
> rule', representing *rÄ«k-inÅ-, and ON <rÃkja>, representing
> *rÄ«kijanÄ
. OHG has a strong verb <(gi)rīhhan>: a preterite
> <gereih> and a participle <gerichin> are attested. There is
> some evidence that this verb was sometimes inflected as a
> weak verb, or that a parallel weak verb representing
> *rÄ«kijanÄ
existed alongside it.
>
> OE has a neuter a-stem <rīc> 'kingdom' and a masc. n-stem
> <rīca> 'ruler'. The latter is probably derived within OE --
> e.g., it could well be a deverbal agent noun (cf. <hunta>
> 'hunter') -- but it could even be the original root noun
> transferred to the a-stem declension.
>
> All of the Gmc. dialects for which I have evidence have name
> themes from *rīk, generally as both prototheme and
> deuterotheme. Gmc. dithematic names were originally
> meaningful compounds; at that stage it is likely that the
> theme existed in both nominal and adjectival forms. As a
> prototheme it was probably in most cases adjectival
> (*rīkja-); the deuterotheme probably represents the noun
> (*rīkz) in most but not all compounds. (Both noun and
> adjective fit nicely into established semantic categories
> for Gmc. name themes.)
>
> At a fairly early date, however, Gmc. dithematic names
> became largely combinatorial constructs: with some
> restrictions, any prototheme could be combined with any
> deuterotheme, irrespective of etymology. (Illustrative
> examples include redundant compounds like <Gunnhildr> and
> <Hildigýþ> and antonymous compounds like <Friðugýþ>,
> <Fridegundis>, <Fridohilt>, <Hiltfrid>, <Gundfrid>, and
> <Hadufrid>.) At this point the etymological distinction
> ceases to be meaningful, and there is simply a (very common)
> name theme RĪK-/-RĪK derived from the basis *rīk (or, if one
> wishes to be very fussy, a prototheme and a deuterotheme).
>
> The deuterotheme from *rīkz is not unique in persisting in
> the various dialects long after the corresponding
> appellative had been lost. For example, no non-onomastic OE
> cognates of the feminine deuterotheme <-flæd> (from *fladi-
> 'beauty') are known, but the deuterotheme itself was common.
> The cognate OHG feminine deuterotheme (<Hruodflat>,
> <Reginflat>, <Sigiflat>, <Winiflat>, etc.) also has no
> recorded OHG appellative counterpart, though there is a MHG
> <vlât> 'Sauberkeit, Zierlichkeit, Schönheit'.
>
> Onomastic suffixes (as distinct from themes) are found, but
> they are mostly familiar Gmc. diminutive suffixes; the most
> obvious exception is <-ing>, especially in OE masculine
> names. Some OHG examples: <Bertila> (fem.), <Paldila>
> (fem.), <Richiza> (fem.), <Thiotilo>, <Uualtilo>,
> <Pirahtilo>, <Paldinc>, <Diotingo> (Lat. dat.).
>
As usual, an excellent exposition of existing theory.
> In short, there is no reason to see -RĪK as a suffix and
> every reason to see it as the deuterothematic counterpart of
> the prototheme RĪK-.
Actually, I think I ended up claiming that the name Theodoric should be analyzed as Theodor-ik-, not Theodor-rīk-. Quote from Wexler:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67011
'The Greek name means 'gift of God' and is synonymous with He nÉtÄn`el, nÉtÄn-jÄh(Å«). See also OGY (He) *tÉ´adrÄ«x (corrected from tÉ´azrÄ«x - with vocalization in the text: Würzburg 1298);209 in German Latin texts the Jewish name appears as Thiderich (Köln, mid-12th c), Tidericus (1230).'
So, are you now going to maintain that the Theodor and Theodoric might have been seen as one in daily use, but they were of different origin?
It might seem surprising that I should use a putative Greek substrate in the German dialect of Ashkenazi Jews as evidence that Snorri might have been right about the Odin invasion, but that is because they would have been the only (still identifiable) ones to have made the whole trip from the Bosporan kingdom to Germany, and people who argue against the story might break it up into two, Bosporan Kingdom to Przeworsk and Przeworsk to Alsace, admitting one and denying the other.
Wexler, p. 45
'3.16 Judeo-Greek influence in European Jewish anthroponymics. Proper names, because they tend to be culture-bound, could provide valuable clues to Jewish migratory history and bilingual contact. Jewish women's names tend to be more receptive to coterritorial Christian influences than Jewish men's names. The latter have a closer link with Hebrew names because of the role of men in the synagogue service. A comparison of Hebrew naming practices in neighboring Jewish culture zones would provide a framework for uncovering possible inter-Jewish cultural contacts in the Slavic lands.
Judeo-Greek anthroponyms are found in all Jewish languages spoken in the areas in which Judeo-Greek was formerly spoken. The same two chronological strata for Judeo-Greek loans apply also to Judeo-Greek anthroponyms. There are Judeo-Greek names first borrowed by Palestinian Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic which were diffused to European Jewish languages, and Judeo-Greek names borrowed directly in a Greek speaking milieu in Europe. Both types of Greek anthroponyms appear in Yiddish. For example, a number of Greek anthroponyms in Yiddish (usually received through Judeo-Romance) appear in the Slavic lands only in the Slavic translation equivalents. This fact is extremely important for assessing the relative impact of Judeo-Greek on Germanic and Slavic Jewries. There are also Judeo-Greek anthroponyms which are unique to Slavicized Eastern Yiddish; these may have come to Yiddish through a Judeo-Slavic intermediary. Loan translations of Greek anthroponyms are more numerous than loan translations of Greek non- anthroponyms. A classification of Judeo-Greek anthroponymic influence in the Ashkenazic culture area - both in Germany and the Slavic lands - is presented below.'
The Judeo-Slavic Wexler introduces as intermediary serves the purpose of filling the geographic gap he thinks there was between the Greek speakers on the northern coast of the Black Sea and the Yiddish-speakers of Germany. But there might not have been any.
p. 154
'The possibility that Slavic might have shaped the formation of native isoglosses in German Yiddish and German should be explored.
Specifying the reasons why the Elbe River became a barrier is a challenge for students of Old Yiddish linguistics and German Jewish history. For the present, I am unable to uncover any significant parallels in non-Jewish dialects. A problem is that we are ignorant of the extent to which Slavic speech was retained in the areas east of the Elbe River between the 10th and 12th centuries when the Germans began to settle the areas.10 It would be worth exploring whether there is any connection between the geography of Romance and Slavic components in German Yiddish and political developments such as (a) the boundary between the Empire of the Hohenstaufen (early 12th-mid-13th centuries) and the Duchies of Bavaria and Austria or (b) the areas in which the Magdeburg Law was in effect.11 A further topic that requires study is the extent to which German and German Yiddish shared a Romance component.
...
10 It is known that Salzburg, Passau (and Bremen) became centers for missionary activity among the Slavs east of the Elbe River in the 9th century, with Regensburg and Magdeburg following in the 10th century (Bosl 1970 55, Seibt 1970 94-95), Magdeburg and the area south of it had a Slavic population in the late 10th century (Bosl 1970 56) See discussion of the Jews near Magdeburg in IbrÄhÄ«m ibn Ja´qÅ«b's 10th century Arabic account (noted in section 4 above) According to Schwarz, Slavic speakers in Thuringia could still be noted as late as the 13th-14th centuries (1960 383) Frankl is of the opinion that Jews settled in Slavic-speaking areas of Eastern Germany much earlier than the Germans themselves (1884 5, see also Mieses 1924 271) - but Frankl does not distinguish between Yiddish-speaking "colonizers" and indigenous Slavic-speaking Jews The remark by Johannes of Saxony in the late 13th century suggests that Lusatian Jews spoke Sorbian.
11 There are a few isoglosses which bisect the German speech territory along the Elbe River, see e g Konig 1981 52-53, 212. Pritsak regards the Elbe River as the dividing line between a Persian-type settlement to the east and a West Germanic-Romance type to the west in the 8th-10th centuries (1981 22)'
The only time the Elbe was a major political boundary was in the few decades up to the Clades Variana in 9 CE where the land south and west of the Elbe was part of the Roman Empire. A scenario in which Yiddish-speakers arrived in that area from the east before that time, taking up contact with Latin-speakers in that short period, would not be in disagreement with the above facts.
Torsten