I agree with the fact that AMLÁIB is not Old Norse. But it may be
Proto-Norse. Indeed, Old Norse ÓLÁFR comes from Proto-Norse
ANULAIBAZ. In accusative we have ANULAIB. This resembles AMLÁIB,
doesn't it? If AMLÁIB - or more conveniently written AMLAIBAZ, was
Proto-Norse, the Old Norse version would be AMLEIFR, I think. I don't
know what the prefix AM- should refer to, though.
If the prefix AM- should really be ARN- (note that 'm' and 'rn' can
be mixed up in some fonts), the Proto-Norse name is ARNLAIBAZ, which,
of course, becomes ARNLEIFR in Old Norse.
It should be notes that often the Proto-Norse diphtong AI became Á,
which explains why the Proto-Norse suffices -LAIBAZ, -LAIKAZ etc.
became -LÁFR, -LÁKR etc. in ÓLÁFR, ÞORLÁKR etc.
One question about Irish: Exactly what does the acute accent ´ mean?
In what sense do AMLÁIB and *AMLAIB differ?
Sjul ('Victory guardian')
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Daniel Bray <dbray@...> wrote:
> Heill Simon,
> Well, the piece you´re reading is wrong. Amláib is not Norse, but
> Irish approximation of the Norse name Óláfr. In Modern Irish it
> spelled Amhláibh, and a very crude rendering into English
> would be "Owlahv".
> simonfittonbrown@... wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Apparently this is another name for Óláfr inn hvíti.
> > According to the piece I'm reading, it says it's Norse, but it
> > look very Norse to me, and would seem to be completely devoid of
> > meaning in Old Norse.
> > Or is it?
> > All the best,
> > Simon
> Daniel Bray
> School of Studies in Religion A20
> University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia
> "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
catastrophe." H. G. Wells (1866 - 1946)