From: george knysh
Message: 17181
Date: 2002-12-14
> > >Harii and Eruli GK]
> > > --- "Troels Brandt <trbrandt@...>"
> > > <trbrandt@...> wrote:
> > > > However a Harii/ErilaR connection is not
> > excluded by
> > > > the above [the "above" is the Gmc analysis of
> > >I am not
> > > *****GK: But if Harii comes from *xarja and
> ErilaR
> > > (and Herul) from *erlaz, how do you establish
> the
> > > connection Harii/Heruli?****
> >
> >(Troels) I do not imagine that all the connections
> > able to explain__________________________________________________
> > should be excluded.
> >
> > The "-ila" suffix was by the way only one of my
> > suggestions. The
> > meeting between Harii and Alanic Sarmatians was
> > another and with the
> > Greeks a third. In such cases I do not believe
> that
> > the system with
> > the reconstructed rules and *words will work.
>
> *****GK Well, might as well go all the way here.
> Piotr
> Gasiorowski happens to be a fabulous interpreter of
> Iranic and Greek (and Miguel Carrasquer is no slouch
> either.) I'm going to ask them what they think of
> the
> possibility that it is the Greeks or Sarmatians who
> turned "Harii" into "Heruli". Back to you
> shortly.****
> >
> > Troels
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com