From: Torsten
Message: 65338
Date: 2009-10-30
>What it?
> At 7:46:46 PM on Wednesday, October 28, 2009, Torsten wrote:
>
> > -- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:10:01 PM on Sunday, October 25, 2009, Torsten wrote:
>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/yjcsxkk
> >>> Danish original
> >>> http://www.verasir.dk/show.php?file=chap22-1-1.html
>
> >> He writes:
>
> >> I Kalevala har Ukko heitet "ylijumala", der i dag
> >> oversættes til "God of Mercy/Lykkens Gud", men oprindeligt
> >> må have haft betydningen "Julens Herre", jvf. julemandens
> >> navn "Ýlir" i Norge/Island i 900 tallet e.Kr.
>
> >> But <ylijumala> is 'high god' (<yli> 'over, above; more
> >> than', <jumala> 'god'). In fact, Václav Blaz^ek thinks
> >> that the name <Ukko> itself is an adaptation of Baltic
> >> *uka- > Prussian <ucka-> 'prefix expressing the
> >> superlative' (as in <ucka-kuslaisin> 'weakest'): the
> >> first god of the Prussian pantheon is in record as
> >> <Occopirmus> 'Saturnus' 1530, <Ockopirmus> 'der erste
> >> Gott Himmels vnd Gestirnes' (16th cent.), and
> >> <Occopirnum> 'deum coeli et terrae' 1563. He concludes:
> >> 'It is generally accepted that the compound *Uka-pirmas
> >> meant "most first"'.
>
> > But where does that leave Öku-Þor then?
>
> It says nothing about it at all.
> If you believe Snorri,?? How so?
> Ukko is totally irrelevant;
> if you think that <Ukko> is theErh, why?
> source of <Öku->, the source of <Ukko> is still irrelevant.
> The real point is that this is a very basic error, as is theI can understand that these matters of prestige are very important to you so I won't press the point.
> error about <Ýlir>. If he can't even get this stuff right,
> I'm not inclined to trust him about much of anything, or to
> take him very seriously as a scholar.
> >> He has a grammatical problem with the verse fromAnd still one of Odin's names is Jólnir
> >> Skáldskaparmál:
>
> >> Jólna sumbl
> >> enn vér gátum,
> >> stillis lof,
> >> sem steina brú.
>
> >> Here <jólna> is clearly a genitive plural, not the gen.
> >> sing. that he wants it to be.
>
> >> (The) gods' banquet/drink [= poetry];
> >> we yet fashioned,
> >> (the) king's praise,
> >> like a stone's bridge.
>
> >> (It's possible that <enn> should be read as <en>
> >> 'but/and', if the first line continues the preceding
> >> strophe.)
>
> > True, bungled, but...
> > I don't think we can escape 'jól' on this one.
>
> It's certainly a possibility. But then Yule itself is the
> underlying idea, referring to a time and a festival.
>
> [...]It can go either way, as you very well know.
>
> >> De tidligst kendte stednavne i Britannien, hvori indgår
> >> "Jól", er "Youlton" (Jól's tun) i North Yorkshire, og
> >> "Youlthorpe" (Jól's thorp) i East Riding, Yorkshire.
>
> >> Here's what Watts has to say about the place-names:
>
> >> S.n. <Youlton>: 'Joli's estate'. <Loletun(e)> (for
> >> <Iole-> 1086, <Yolton'> 1295-1508.
>
> >> S.n. <Youlthorpe>: 'Eyjulfr's outlying farm', later
> >> 'Yole's outlying farm', with spellings <Aiul(f)torp> 1086,
> >> <Hiel-, Hioltorp> 12th c., <Yolt(h)orpe(e)> 12th-1359.
> >> From the 12th cent. this name contains a different
> >> pers.n., ME <Yole> from ON <Jól>, <Jóli>.
>
> >> So this one apparently never did contain the Scandinavian
> >> name as such and didn't acquire its ME borrowing until the
> >> 12th century.
>
> > Apparently Watts' Eyulfr hangs on the 1086 form alone.
> > Are you sure that is not a folk normalization of an
> > unusual name?
>
> As sure as one can be in such cases. If it were a folk
> normalization, it would most likely have persisted.
> Besides, the manner in which DB was constructed means thatCan't say it couldn't happen. Same as for the other option.
> odd forms are generally the result of Anglo-Norman
> misunderstanding of native input. Here we have a perfectly
> expectable AN rendering of a late OE form of <Eyjulfsþorp>.
>