Re[2]: [tied] PGmc question

At 2:36:14 PM on Saturday, March 28, 2009, A. wrote:

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

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

>>> Regarding the rune Ear and Irmin

>>>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

> I see where you mention "It's properly <e:ar> (the name of
> the <e(:)a> rune), presumed to be identical with OIc. aurr
> 'soil, sand, dust' (or some such meaning), hence the
> poetic expression <hylja auri> 'inhume, lay sb. in the
> grave'."

> I am curious how you know the form to be e:ar - not trying
> to argue at all, I am simply confused and hope to
> understand!

Piotr may know other reasons as well, but the OIc.
expression <hylja auri> is nicely paralleled by the lines
pertaining to the rune in the OE rune poem.

>> is a link between Ear and Gothic air-th-a : earth, land ??

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

> Not to be intentionally stupid (unintentionally is a
> different matter) but I was not aware that PGmc *aura- had
> been established as the root of e:ar. But upon tracking
> down Koebler's Old Norse etymological database, I see now
> that the etymology is given as *aura-, *auraz (hence the
> same root Danish o(with umlaut)r, 'sandbank' and as modern
> English ore). Is there any chance you could explain to me
> the development of *aura into e:ar?

PGmc. *au regularly yields OE /e:a/, and the final *-az of
a-stem masculines is regularly lost, so OE <e:ar> is exactly
what you'd expect from PGmc. *auraz.

(By the way, I still owe you a response from back in
February. I got very busy and completely forgot about the
note that you sent me; I'll try to get to it in the next few
days.)

Brian