Re: [tied] Re: IRMIN

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1:37 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: IRMIN

> And why should the Finns call their king <kuningas> and the Slavs their god <Bog>?

 

Here we have to do with historically verifiable contacts and numerous loans with a clear pattern of correspondences. There's no link like that between the Cherusci (or any other Germanic people) and the Armenians or some otherwise enigmatic non-Alanic Iranians introduced quite ad hoc to justify a single wild etymology.

 

> Aha! So I with my penchant for "irregular" explanations should come up with another (but "irregular"?) explanation for "Arminius", since ordinary linguists can't or won't? But I'm afraid what I came up with is the best I can do.

> Sometimes I get an idea which I post, and after that I might get an idea that I think is better, which I also post. Point taken. I shall try in the future to stick to my first idea, whatever happens.

No need, if you could just make up your mind about what you're arguing at the moment. It's difficult to discuss with several vaguely sketched and mutually exclusive ideas posted at the same time. So how do you etymologise Arminius right now?

 

Piotr