--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>
>
T 1:
> > 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-?
>
P:
> 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.
T 2:
What are the other criteria that you want met?
P:
>The other three names contain *ermVn-, and I'm tired of explaining
>why it is not "aryaman-", whatever it is.
T 1:
> > 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-
?)
>
P:
> Ever heard of such a Germanic dialect so early?
T 2:
No need for an early one. <Armenius>, <ermun-dur-i>, etc are borrowed
early; the confusion only arises once Germanic is spoken inside the
Roman Empire.
P:
This looks like a whole bunch of "special" explanations to explain
something that doesn't really need explaining.
T 2:
Like the provenance of <Armenius>, <Hermunduri> etc?
How about this: <ermun-dur-> equals <Tor-ing-> "follower of Thor"?
> Piotr
Torsten