--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> I give up.
>
> The idea was that if a compound means 'foreign(er)' and its
> first component is clearly 'real(ly)', then the second should
> mean what?
Well I had been convinced by Benveniste that "arya(:na)-"
never meant "stranger". Please see "Benveniste's Discussion
of 'Arya'", an excerpt from "Indo-European Language and
Society", in the files section in the folder "att". However
if it is actually correct to analyze the word as "æcæg-ælon",
and if "ælon" here is truly from *arya:na-, then I'll have
to reconsider. I wonder though if this derivation is correct.
First of all, I don't understand the necessity of "æcæg".
What does it add? Secondly, why would the Aryans have named
themselves "strangers"?
I would really like to see you crosspost your question to the
the list at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo_iranian/ ,
and I especially hope for a response from Dominique Thillaud,
who once gave what I thought was a very good refutation of
another Alan-seeking etymology of Abaev's, peace be with him.
See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo_iranian/message/234 .
David