Re: PGmc question

On 2009-03-28 19:36, A. wrote:

> 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!

Whatever the name of the rune, it stands for <e:a> < *au. This is borne
out by its only epigraphic occurrence -- on the Thames scramaseax. It's
the second letter of the name B{ea}gno{th} (there are at least three
other known Beagnoths from the eighth and ninth centuries).

> 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?

It's the regular development of *au in Old English. Unless umlauted or
smoothed out before a velar (the latter only in Anglian OE), it is
reflected as <e:a> (pronounced [æ:A]).

> I cannot think of a compelling reason, are you aware of an etymology for
> *ermana- /jormun ?

Not a convincing one. There are only tentative guesses, and no clear
external cognates with the same structure.

Piotr