From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 34855
Date: 2004-10-26
> Brian M. Scott wrote:Not at all. My original comment had nothing to do with the
>>>> Yes. This is very early in terms of our knowledge of
>>>> Germanic names and naming practices.
>>> Here is what I pointed out before. An early date means
>>> the first Kings;
>> What you pointed out before is simply incorrect in the
>> overall context of Germanic onomastics.
> I am afraid I do not understand you here. I do not speak
> in "overall context of Germanic onomastic" but I just
> simple compare the non-composite names of the first Gothic
> kings comparative with these with are comming after them.
> A such sentence as yours where you say "is simply
> incorrect" would lead one to think you are just trying to
> ignore the difference which is seen between these
> names.
>>> BTW is this again a deutherotheme which will mislead oneWhat names would those be? <-berg-> is a feminine
>>> to the word mountain which in Gothic was "bairgan"?
>> It goes with Goth. <baírgan> 'to hide, preserve,
>> protect', OE <beorgan>, ON <bjarga>, modern German
>> <bergen>.
> So, not mountain but to save; thus the names in "-bargus"
> should be considered as "protector" or something of... IWatkins and Pokorny both derive it from PIE *bHerg^H-.
> suspect this is just a simply "-k" extenssion of IE
> "bher-" in Germanic space, isn't it?