From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 56081
Date: 2008-03-28
----- Original Message -----
From: "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Slav names from *Walh-
--- 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.
***
Stop trying to remember and get a copy of Pokorny.
In the first place, *wa(:)l-, 'strong', and *8. wel-, 'wound', are two
different roots.
pre-PIE *wa:l-; naturally long, no 'laryngeal'; and
pre-PIE *wo:l-, naturally long, no 'laryngeal'.
This latter -> early PIE *wol- then *wAl- -> *wél-.
PIE *wél&(2)- simply means 'wounded;.
***
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 nasma GEME-an kuiski walhzi na-as aki QAZZU
if slave or female-slave anyone he-strikes Ptc.-he he-dies his-hand
wastai 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.'
>>
***
This is obviously *wél&-, 'wound(ed)'.
***
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'.
***
No, it is not "there"!!!
Adding "gloriously" is your addition; it does not belong to *wél&- at all.
***
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
***
Well, Marius, you seem to know and understand as little about Germanic
culture as the author of that entry in AHD.
'Death' qualifies no one to enter Valhalla; dying bravely is necessary, else
why would the Valkyries bother to 'chose'?
Odin feasts with heroes not with stiffs.
Patrick
***