Re: PGmc question

On 2009-03-27 17:26, A. wrote:

>
>
> Regarding the rune Ear and Irmin
>
> Grimm suggested that the rune Ear (or Ea) was a component of the term
> Eormen/Irmin ; and that the rune and name (Irmin) both referred to the
> same deity.
> Sticking purely to the linguistic matter, I am curious as to whether
> there is a relationship between the various cognates surrounding the two
> terms (Ear & Irmin) that would support or hinder Grimm's argument.

No chance. The name of the rune has *au in it.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61361

> Potential cognates of whatever was the PGmc origin of Ear:
> OE Ear (the rune name which is generally taken to mean "grave")
> ON aurr, `wet clay'; and eyrr, `gravelly bank near water'
> Gothic *aurahjons, `tomb'."
> I've never seen it proposed, but it seems self evident to assume there
> is a link between Ear and Gothic air-th-a : earth, land ??

Impossible: *aura- and *erþo:- cannot be reconciled.

> Irmin cognates (I think the PGmc form is believed to be *erman ?) :
> OE eormengrund 'wide world', eormentheod 'mighty people', Eormenric
> 'mighty king'
> ON jormun - jormungandr, jormungrund, etc
> Gothic Airemanareiks

Airmana- (/ermana-/, actually.

It's *ermana- or *ermuna- ~ *irmina- (with a variable suffix vowel).

> As I've mentioned before, I'm woefully inept at this, so I am wondering
> if the various grammatical forms suggest any shared PGmc root (that the
> same PGmc term could give rise to OE ear & Eor; ON aurr, eyrr, & jor;
> Gothic aurahjons, airemana, and possibly airtha ) ??

There are no formal obstacles to analysing *erþo:- and *ermVna- as
containing the same root *er-; the question is only whether there are
compelling reasons to insist on a connection (does it explain anything
else?). But Ear/aurr doesn't belong here; that's for sure.

Piotr