Re: PGmc question

From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 63706
Date: 2009-03-31

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


I actually would like to add that in OE, a form *Earmen (with *short* <ea>) would arise from PGmc *arman-, not from a PGmc *Aurman-. A form *E:armen, distinct from *Earmen, would be a compound of *Aura- plus another word, this one possibly in reduced form. And *Earmen would be clearly different from *Eormen in OE. Also needless to say *E:ormen would be a compound word as well, distinguished from *Eormen with short diphthong <eo>, and in virtually all varieties of OE, with a first element definitely not from *Aura- (with the lone exception of that isolated variety of Northumbrian that I mentioned).

Andrew