Re[2]: [tied] OE "afor"

At 2:41:19 PM on Thursday, December 4, 2003, alex wrote:

> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:36:00 +0100, alex
>> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>>> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:14:55 +0100, alex
>>>> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>>>>> is this word cognate with German "eifer"?

>>>> Yes.

>>>>> If yes what is its etymology?

>>>> *aibhros

>>> it seems to me the "i" is too much in the reconstructed word for
>>> Germanic. What speaks for "ai-" in *aibhros ?

>> Everything. OHG ei = OE a: < PGmc. *ai < PIE *ai/*oi.

> Everything? OE "a" can be OHG "e" as well and even from
> PIE *a; see for instance "eidechse", OE "adexe",

That's <a:ðexe> or <a:dexe>; length matters (as the spam in
my mailbox keeps telling me).

> OHG "egedehse"

Is irrelevant to the equation

OHG ei = OE a: < PGmc. *ai < PIE *ai/*oi,

since it doesn't have ei.

> where the first part is considered to be from PIE *agi- It
> seems the *abhros would fit as well the both Germanic
> forms; more, it will fit the Rom. form too.

It wouldn't fit the Gmc. forms at all. If I'm not mistaken
it would yield Gmc. */aBraz/ and OE *afr-, *afor, not
<a:for>.

Brian