Re: [tied] Re: IRMIN

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:23 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: IRMIN

> 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-?

 

Of course not. Arminius is too early (*xarja- would have been reflected as Lat. Chari(a)- at that time, and not of the -mann- type. I can't propose a good etymology, since I don't know what the Germanic form of the name really was, but fantastical comparison with "aryaman-" or "Armenian" doesn't explain it either. You cannot base a sound etymology on the similarity of form alone. The other three names contain *ermVn-, and I'm tired of explaining why it is not "aryaman-", whatever it is.

> 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-?)

Ever heard of such a Germanic dialect so early? This looks like a whole bunch of "special" explanations to explain something that doesn't really need explaining.

 

Piotr