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

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> To: cybalist@...
> 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

The hypercorrection would be based (as I tried to explain in the
previous posting) on a social shibboleth, -n- vs nothing in North
Germanic at the time.