[tied] Re: Vanir,etc.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:55 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Vanir,etc.
>
>
> > > I remember you that Proto-Germanic has /*ansuz/, "a k. of

divine or

> > > semi-divine being". So we cannot match it with a form /as/ that
> > > almost certainly had no ancient nasal at all. It is chance
> > > resemblance.
> > >
> >
> > Which is a reconstruction. I think the Germanic forms with -n-

are a

> > hypercorrection.
>
> Absolute nonsense. OE o:s-, ON ás-, OHG ans- unabbiguously point to

*ans-

> and to nothing else. The only reason for your thinking that the -n-

is a

> "hypercorrection" is that otherwise you can't match the Germanic

word with

> "as-". For anybody else it would be a sufficient reason for

abandoning the

> comparison, but you prefer to follow the method worked out by

Procrustes the

> highwayman: "If they don't fit, stretch 'em."
>

Or it might be a case of homophonous words.

So how would you resolve the problem of people suddenly swarming out
of Thuringia, carrying Roman weapons, bearers of a culture that can't
be totally matched to its immediate Jastorf predecessor? No
Procrustes methods, please.

Torsten