Re: [tied] IRMIN

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 13313
Date: 2002-04-17

It would make no sense if the initial conditions had been the same in both words, but they aren't. Note the different vowel quality in *arya:na- and *aryaman-; it determines the distribution of "weak" and "strong" vowels in the later reflexes of both forms. The former yields *ala:n- > *ælan (lon *a: > "strong" *a), the latter *alimán > *(æ)liman (*ya > "weak" *i).
 
<arimanni> 'warriors' represents Latinised Langobardic *harimann- < *xarja-mann- 'army-man' (cf. the name Hermann, OHG heri, OE here 'army'). Both elements are 100% Germanic.
 
Piotr
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: [tied] IRMIN

But in that case Alanian would have *ala- from *arya- and *æliman-
from *aryaman. That does not make sense.

I sent a posting about this yesterday, but it seems to have been lost.

and cf.

Lucien Musset: The Germanic Invasions
(translated from: Les Invasions: Les Vagues Germaniques)
p. 147, of the Lombards (Langobards)
"
...
There are signs suggesting the existence of colonies of <arimanni>
(freemen liable for military service) at strategic points, for
example at Friuli and at the entrances to Alpine passes.
...
"

In other words, there exists a Langobardic gloss <ariman-> "freeman".
The Langobards came from the Baltic coast. Note the /r/ reflex of
<aryaman> here, as in (H)ermi(n)ones, Hermun-dur-i, or the king of
the latter, Hermanaric, as opposed to the /l/ of Alan and Alaman. So
the invaders of Thuringia were not quite Alans.

Torsten