Re: PGmc question

On 2009-03-30 00:39, A. wrote:

> 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?

Yes, I have little to add to what Andrew and Brian have already said,
except perhaps by clarifying the development of Germanic *e in *ermVna-.
Already in PGmc. an underlying */e/ was raised if the next syllable
contained *i or *j, so the variant *ermina- became *irmina- (hence OHG
irmin-). In Old English, *e was regularly diphthongised ("broken") to
_short_ /eo/ before a final or preconsonantal liquid, so *ermana- became
*ermen- > eormen-. Finally, the *e of Proto-Norse *ermuna- changed into
*iO > OIc. jö (also a regular process, conditioned by the presence of
/u/ in the next syllable.

> 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.

People are usually _very_ reluctant to abandon whatever pet theory they
already have; and the less they know about the subject, the greater
their reluctance. Frustrating as it is, it's just one of those facts of
life.

Piotr