Re: [tied] Re: I, Hercules [was: A "Germanic" query]

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 12507
Date: 2002-02-26

 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: I, Hercules [was: A "Germanic" query]

> And why these extra assumptions? Because we could then analyse Thoringia (Thuringia) as *þor-ing- etc. If we didn't, who were those people then -ing-'s, followers of, if not of þor?
It's far less trouble to posit *þunr-ing- with nasal dissimilation > *þuring-. The simplification of -nr- is possible even without dissimilation, cf. English þunresdaeg > þurresdaei > þursdai (all stages attested, and they differ from Norse-influenced forms like Older Scots <thuirsday> et sim., with the vocalism of þórs-dagr). The development of *þun(a)raz out of *þo:raz (?) (*þuraz [*þoraz] would not have produced the right ON quantity) is too contrived to be believable. Hypercorrection must be based on some kind of structural analogy. What would it be in this case? *þunr- is nicely relatable to a known word-family (including Lat. tona:re 'to thunder', tonitrus 'thunder').
 
Piotr