--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>
> However, talking of *kl-words, we have Germanic *klaiw-a- ( Ger. Klee)
> versus *klaiB-r-o:n- (OE kla:fre > Mod.E clover), a possible example of
> *-wr- > *-Br- in early Germanic. Perhaps Liberman's etymology of <ever>
> could be saved if one didn't insist on the late creation of the
word. Of
> course the fact that hypothetical *aiw-izan- (or the like) does not
seem
> to be attested outside English remains a difficulty.
>
I doubt that <cla:fre> goes back to *klaiwro:n, cf. MLG <kle:ver,
kla:ver>, Du <klaver>, EFris <klafer, kläfer, klefer>, Dan. <klever,
kløver>, Norw <kløver, klyver>, Swed <klöver> (all from OED). OED
says it probably goes back to the first element of OHG <chle:o,
chle:wes> (= G <Klee> "clover") plus "a worn-down form of some
unidentified word". Unless the shift /-wr-/> /-vr-/ was a
near-pan-Germanic shift, or unless there has been a lot of borrowing
among the Germanic languages. (Actually as I write this the combined
evidence of <æ:fre>, <la:ferce>, and <cla:fre> beside *aiw-,
<la:uricæ>, and <chle:o> now makes me feel that there must be
something to this idea of /-wr-/ becoming /-vr-/ in OE and perhaps
other Gmc languages (why didn't it happen, apparently, initially in
OE?). But as you say the formation *aiwizan is not found anywhere
else, so *a:/æ:(in)feore etc. seems likelier, I agree with you. And
why not *æ:fra (normal comparative form) or *æ:for/*æ:fer (comp. adv.)
instead of <æ:fre>? (Or even *æ: < *aiwiz, comp. adv.? And does *aiw-
function as an adjective in Germanic or OE?) This will probably be my
last submission on this topic because it's a little off-topic.
Andrew