Re: [tied] Re: more Geshur- Sorry

It is my sad duty to report that Theo Vennemann has insisted on such a connection in article after article as part of his "atlantisch" hypothesis. He also compares Gmc. *haþu- 'fight, battle' and ON Höðr with (Möller's) Semitic *s^-t- and alleged "pre-Semitic" *k^-t-, connecting it ultimately with Satan and "vielleicht" Seth.

Der name <Baldr> ist wie das Appellativum <baldr/bealdor> 'Herr' etymologisch ungeklärt. Die Ableitung vom Adjektiv urgerm. *balþaz 'kühn' (got. balþ-, ahd. bald, an. ballr, ae. beald, ne. bold) wäre morphologish obskur. Auch würde diese Herleitung etymologisch nicht weiterführen, da *balþaz 'kühn' selbst ungeklärt ist. Ich vermute, daß es sich beim Appellativum <baldr/bealdor> 'Herr' und beim Gottesnamen <Baldr>, der mit dem Appellativum etymologisch identisch ist, um atlantisches Lehngut handelt, dessen Etymon sich letzlich schon im Atlantischen (vielleicht als *b-C-l-r-) von semitischen Baal-Wort ableitete. Etwas Entsprechendes mag auch (vielleicht mit einer Basis *b-C-l-t-) für das Adjektiv *balþ- 'kühn' gelten.

[Vennemann, Theo. 1997. "Atlantiker in Nordwesteuropa: Pikten und Vanen". In Stig Elisson and Ernst Håkon Jahr (eds.), _Language and its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen_, p. 472 (endnote 26)]

Don't be scared, Chris; I don't think much of Vennemann's fantastical etymologies. My intention is merely to point out that you never know what scholars, even modern ones, will get up to. We all have our foibles :)

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: indravayu

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 6:19 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: more Geshur- Sorry

And what "scholars" would these be? Please don't say Robert Graves...I will lose all respect for you. No modern Germanic or PIE scholar that I have ever read maintains that there is any type of linguistic connection between Semitic Baal/Bel [from Common Semitic *bCl- "lord"] and Norse Baldr (from Germanic *balthaz "bold", ultimately from PIE *bhel-[2] "swell/blow").