--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Ellipsis (for the sake of economy and convenience) is justifiable
in such cases. An asterisked form _also_ represents a set of
systematic correspondences. We routinely say, e.g., that the PIE root
*bHendH- is attested in Germanic, meaning actually not even PGmc.
*bind- but the whole set of its ultimate descendants like Eng. bind,
etc. in the individual languages. The actual forms can easily be
enumerated if need be. The presence of the Alani (Roxolani,
Iazyges, ...) among the Germani is known well enough, and a
few "Sarmatian" etymologies have been proposed for Germanic words
(<path> is a very convincing one); however, *xarja-mann- (don't
ignore the double *-nn-; it's important in this case!)
stands "without competition" simply because the etymology is
straightforward, self-explanatory and without any formal problems.
The second element is declined just like the root noun *mann- (e.g.
OE heremenn glossing 'milites'), so why should it be anything else?
There is no need to introduce an alternative Iranian etymology which
is in all respects inferior to a native one, being neither self-
explanatory, nor elegant on the formal side; as far as I can see the
only motivation for it is someone's wishful thinking.
>
> Piotr
>
>
Yes, wishful thinking is widespread in linguistics. About time
someone warned against it.
Arminius, Hermi(n)ones, Hermun-dur-i, Hermanaric are in need of an
explanation too. What would that be? You wouldn't want to derive
_them_ from *xarja-mann-?
Suppose *arya-man actually _was_ borrowed from Iranic to Germanic.
Pretty soon the suffix would be volks-etymologized to align with
Germanic <man(n)-> (and perhaps in a Romance-influenced and /h-/-
insecure Germanic "cockney" dialect also *arja- with *harja-?)
Torsten