--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> Of course I do.
>
> 'hall of the strong'
>
>
> Patrick
>
Patrick, the Germanic *walaz is well attested in the daughter languages
http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE566.html
What are the germanic *wal- words that you are using for your
assumption? we have especially Germanic words reflecting *wal-dH- (if I
remember well) for your proposed root.
On the other hand: also the root welh2- (Pokorny wel-8, if I remember
correctly) means 'to strike, to wound'
see Hit. walhzi 'strikes' < *welh2-ti (I hope that it belongs
here...)
<<
takku ÌR-an nama GEME-an kuiki walhzi na-a aki QAZZU
if slave or female-slave anyone he-strikes Ptc.-he he-dies his-hand
watai apun arnuzi Ù I SAG.DU pai
it-sins that-one he-gives-recompense and one person he-gives
`If anyone strikes a male or a female slave, [so that] the slave
dies, his hand is guilty, and he pays recompense for that one and gives
one person.'
>>
If you like the 'warrior'-semantism of Walhalla that I like either
(and for sure: this semantism is there) welh2- 'to strike, to wound'
contains it too...but please remember also that we have there 'that
ones that gloriously have died in the battle and due to this have
arrived nearby their God'.
Remains to see now what nuance is preferable:
"that ones, [deadly] wounded [in a glorious battle]..."
or
"that ones, the strongers, [that have died in a glorious battle] ..."
and I think that the first ones sounds better...to define the heroes...
Marius