Re: Negation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-12-06 00:37, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > You forgot 'ever' (of course of different origin)?
>
> Not entirely different. Practically all writers on the subject

derive OE

> (n)æ:fre in one way or another from PGmc. *aiw- < *h2aiw-. If Anatoly
> Liberman's analysis (a late comp. of <a:, a:wa> 'always, ever') is
> correct, the -r- comes from the *z of the comparative suffix *-izan-
> (incidentally, it seems to me the variant <a:wa> contains two

*aiwa-'s =

> 'ever-ever'). The etymology is surely imaginative and

thought-provoking,

> like most of Liberman's ideas, and explains the strangely late
> attestation of <æ:fre>. Still, I wouldn't say that it is definitely
> superior to the older etymology, æ:fre < *æ:-feore (*aiwi- plus the
> dat.sg. of <feorh> 'life'), a compound corresponding to the
> well-attested phrase <a: to: feore> 'for evermore' (also <a:wa to:
> feore> and even <æ:fre to feore>). If the second etymology is correct,
> the *r is part of the noun feorh < *ferxWu- 'life', not a suffix at all.
>
> Piotr
>

What's your opinion on the idea that it may come from *a:/*æ: plus
*byre "time, opportunity, occurrence", i.e. "a lifetime of
occurrences" or some such (idea mentioned in OED). Is this less
believable than or equally believable to the idea of <a: in feore> or
<æ: feore>?

Also, how does a comparative of *a:w explain the <f>? When does OE *w
ever become /v/ (I know we have <laverock> beside <lark> from OE
<læ:werce>, but OE also has <la:ferce> whose <f> I think may be
etymological <f> (i.e. from a variant formation, not from a regular
phonetic development of /w/))? I think OED says that some English
dialects pronounce or used to pronounce <wr-> with a /v/, was that a
general feature which would explain the /v/ in <æ:fre> appearing in
all dialects and to the present day, when <wr-> in initial position
does not have /vr/ in almost all if not all modern dialects?

Andrew