Re: OE "afor"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> > My Kluge says:
> >
> > In mhd. *i:fer erkennt W.Schulze [] substantivierung des Adj. ahd
> > eivar, eibar, ags. a:for "herb". Dies mit lat. aibrumas 'Sodbrennen'
> > zu *aibhro- 'scharf, herb', einer Erweiterung der idg. Wurzel *ai-
> > 'brennen'.
> >
> > See Pokorny, with reservations, under *ai-.
> >
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > mcv@...
>
> With the addition from my GED:
> "_vielleicht_ hängt die ganze Sippe mit ahd. "eivar" (scharf, bitter)
> und aengl. "a:for" (herb, scharf) zusammen"

Incidentally, <a:for> has been erroneously analysed by philologists
more accomplished than Alex. Bosworth and Toller's classic
_Anglo-Saxon Dictionary_ lists the word as <afor> (with short /a/) and
compares it with Gothic abrs 'strong' (which happens to be a faux
ami). Toller realised the mistake and corrected the etymology as well
as the transcription of the word (changing <a> to <a:>) in the
supplement to the dictionary.

Piotr