From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 27998
Date: 2003-12-05
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:ahd
>
> > Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> > > My Kluge says:
> > >
> > > In mhd. *i:fer erkennt W.Schulze [] substantivierung des Adj.
> > > eivar, eibar, ags. a:for "herb". Dies mit lat.aibrumas 'Sodbrennen'
> > > zu *aibhro- 'scharf, herb', einer Erweiterung der idg. Wurzel*ai-
> > > 'brennen'.bitter)
> > >
> > > 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,
> > und aengl. "a:for" (herb, scharf) zusammen"and
>
> 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/)
> compares it with Gothic abrs 'strong' (which happens to be a fauxwell
> ami). Toller realised the mistake and corrected the etymology as
> as the transcription of the word (changing <a> to <a:>) in the
> supplement to the dictionary.
>
> Piotr