Re: Nori

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 2:45:06 PM on Thursday, September 11, 2008, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 7:28:45 AM on Thursday, September 11, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> BTW norsk "Norwegian" is supposedly from ON norðrænn,
> >>> which goes back to ON norð-r "north", which contains the
> >>> root *nr.- "down, below", which doesn't make much sense.
>
> >> That's a matter of opinion. Beekes s.v. <énertHe(n)> has
> >> an attractive explanation for the association
> >> below-left-north:
>
> >> A good formal agreement to <vérteros> gives Italic in
> >> Umbr. <nertru> 'sinistro', Osc. <nertra-k> 'a sinistra'.
> >> One compares further Germanic words for 'north', e. g.
> >> OWNo. <norðr> n., which requires zero grade: PGm.
> >> *núrþra-, IE *nr.tro-. Basic meaning: 'region where the
> >> sun is below', or 'left side of someone who prays when
> >> turning to the east'.
>
> >> The directional association (but on the other side) is
> >> also found in OIr <dess> 'right, south' (cognate with Lat.
> >> <dexter>).
>
> > But cf. PGmc. *winistra-, Da. venstre "left". That would
> > make north the preferred direction.
>
> I'll go with Ordbog over det Danske Sprog:
>
> komp.-dannelse til stammen i I. Ven; egl.: "den
> gunstigere" (vist opr. eufem. betegnelse for den side, der
> betragtedes som den uheldige)

Not exactly strikingly convincing. In case you don't know, Da. vist
might originally have been semantically aligned with German gewiss,
but now it means something like "most likely, on the balance, I guess".

> >>> Now consider this proposal:
> >>> Norther- "at the Nori"
> >>> Easter- "at the Aestii"
> >>> Wester- "at the Wends"
> >>> Souther- "at the Sueui"
>
> >> They're all pretty bad phonologically,
>
> > The classical ones are pretty bad semantically.
>
> I disagree; 'north' is the only one that offers the
> slightest difficulty semantically. Association of east,
> west, and south with dawn, evening, and sun is very natural.
>
> >> but this last one is especially so: the 'south' word
> >> clearly had a nasal: *sunþ-.
>
> [...]
>
> > Da. sønder-, adv. sønden. If we assume a connection
> > between Sueui and Svear, as some do (making the Svear
> > immigrants against native Götar), the -n- in the adj. Sw.
> > svensk, Jordanes suehans, MLat. sueones. matches the -n-
> > of *sunþ-.
>
> ON <Svíar>, <Svíþjóð>, <svænskr>, runic <sveþiuþ>,
> <suiþiuþu>, runic Danish <-sweaR>, Latin <Suiones>
> (Tacitus), <Sueones> (Adam of Bremen), <Suehans> (Jordanes),
> <Suetidi> (Jordanes), and OE <Swe:oland> and <Swe:on> are
> clearly from something with initial *sw-, and the /n/ is
> clearly not part of the root; the 'south' words are equally
> clearly from somthing in *sunþ-, whose *n is integral to the
> root.

Your last posting contained 6 obvious/obviously's, this one contains 4
occurrences of Arnaud's favorite, 'clearly'. Clearly, that constitutes
progress, obviously.

The Latin n-stems alternate -o:/-in-, the one in -io:/-io:n- I suspect
they have arisen from the former by generalization. Traditionally the
latter is taken apart into two separate suffixes -i- and -o:/-on-. I
think something similar happened here. Cf. the -n- of PGmc. *sei-n-.


Torsten