--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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).
>
> > 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,
Thank you again for your response.
And a big thanks to Brian, Andrew and Rick as well!
I'd also like to ask just one last question, if I may...
You (Piotr) stated there is now way e:ar and irmin can be related.
Thus I'm assuming that despite the lack of a clear etymology for PGmc *ermana- , there is no way it can be linguistically related to *aura- . Is this because *aura- cannot develop into anything like OHG Ir-, OE Eor-, or ON Jor- ... is that correct?
It seems that should be self evident from your earlier remark, but then I don't want assume anything as we all know assumption of the mother of much pie in the face.
Anyway, with the assistance of you all on list, I'm hoping that I can soon go about correcting my fellow heathen peers on their misguided acceptance of Grimm's theory that the rune Ear = Irmin. Of course they are likely to be less than receptive as this theory seems to have general acceptance; hence my desire to make sure I have things perfectly clear and concise for them.
Thank you yet again!
Aydan