From: thoresenmorten
Message: 65645
Date: 2010-01-14
>Hello Torsten
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Pavel A. da Mek" <a.da_mek0@> wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know the etymology of "herold"?
> >
> > herald
> > c.1276 (in Anglo-Latin), "messenger, envoy," from Anglo-Fr. heraud,
> > from O.Fr. heraut, hiraut, perhaps from Frank. *hariwald "commander
> > of an army," from P.Gmc. *kharjaz "army" (from PIE root *koro-
> > "war") + *wald- "to command, rule." The form fits, but the sense
> > evolution is difficult to explain, unless in ref. to the chief
> > officer of a tournament, who introduced knights and made decisions
> > on rules. The verb is c.1384, from the noun. Heraldry "art of arms
> > and armorial bearings" is first recorded 1390, as heraldy, from
> > O.Fr. hiraudie, from hiraut, originally "heralds collectively." The
> > spelling with -r- is attested from 1572 (cf. poetry, pedantry). ///
>
> Wouldn't one expect **xarja-wald-, not *xari-wald?
>
> Cf.
> Tom Markey
> The Negau A and N inscriptions
> pp 121-124
>
> [I've replaced the text's psi with G, phi with P, theta with þ and chi with x]
> 'The perennial crux of Negau B is that, given the fact that the inscription reflects Germanic, Germanists insist that we should expect epigraphic *hariaGastis teivas for Germanic *harjagastiz teiwaz (= Proto-Norse *HarjagastiR Ti:waR); that is, a Germanic nom. sg. masc. i-stem (with the requisite composition form harja- for short stem-syllabic *harjaz) + a nom. sg. masc. o-stem, rather than what is recorded: hariGasti teiva. Hamp (1955) and others both long before and after him, have consistently attempted to squeeze Germanic blood from a Rhetoid turnip. Alternatively, we are told that the scribe must have omitted a final -i for what should have been a dat. sg. *teivai = *teiwai 'to Tyr', and we are then treated to a votive interpretation of the text in which the helmet is viewed as a specific offering, and all of this is usually served up in total ignorance of any archaeological, epigraphic, cultural or historical context.
>
> As pointed out above, Nedoma (1995) fails to provide a satisfactory interpretation of harigasti. To account for teiva, he posits a nom. sg. masc. n-stem: *teiwæ, with -æ < *-æ(n) < *-æ:n, an interesting, even ingenious, though perhaps slightly desperate suggestion that is ultimately unconvincing and, as we shall see, also unwarranted; cf. Williams (1996b:140-141).
>
> We see hariGasti teiva is a Rhetoid (Magrè) rendering of a Germanic *harjagastiz teiwaz, a rendering that was as correct as possible in terms of Rhetic epigraphy, phonology and morphology (two nominatives) of underlying Germanic input.
>
> A Germanic nom. sg. masc. i-stem *harjagastiz would have been realized in Rhetic as hariGasti; the Rhetic genitive sg. would have been *hariGastis; cf. Etr. Tarxi nom. sg. vs. gen. sg. Tarxis. A Germanic nom. sg. o-stem *teiwaz would have been realized as teiva. Similarly,
> pnake vixamulaTe renders Celtic nom. sg. masc. *Ben(n)acos Windamolatos on the Vadenà Stele;
> Magrè PuxiGinu (PID 239, MA-19) = Celtic *But(t)ig(i)nos,
> Magrè klevie (PID 237, MA-17) = Lat. Clevius;
> lavisie (VN-1) = Lat. Lavisius (patronymic) vs. gen. sg. lavises (PID 188, WE-1), cf. Ven. (Od 4) lav.s.ko.s. (syncopation of *Lavi.s.ko.s. ?) and L. Lavisno (= Rhet. *lavisnu) Paternus (CIL 5.1.5023, Trento), see Lejeune (1974:293), Untermann (1959-1961:151 et passim) and Pauli (1885:103-104);
> vepelie (SZ-11) = Lat. Vebelius, Ven. Vebelei = vePele.i. (Es 67);
> laspa (SZ-1) = Lat. *Laspa vs. dat. sg. laspasi (WE-3), cf.
> Etr. Tita : Titasi; xul.ie (SR-4) = Lat. Tullius, and so on.
>
> Nominal compounds are extremely rare in Etruscan (seemingly also in Rhetic) and Venetic, and the compositional morphology of *harja-gastiz was presumably alien to Rhetic; recall the orthographic struggle to accomplish -ua- for -wo- in banuabi. If, as seems likely, the Sanzeno (SZ-1) "fish" votive's Gikas^iGanu = Etr. *ci ca(s)si cana is correctly interpreted as 'three helmet image (as a votive)' with cana in the sense of se:ma, then we perhaps have a Rhetic model for hari- instead of haria-; cf. Pellegrini (1951:306-308). For Rhetic Ganu as 'image', note Lothen (PU-1): miG Ganu Pelturiesk = Etr. *mic cana Velþuriesc 'And I (am the) image of Velturie', cf. Larþeal Caicnas Þamries cana (CIE 5071, Orvieto), mi cana Larþial (TLE 682, S. Martino alia Palma). On alternation of u and a (e.g. Etr. amace ~ amuce), see Morandi (1991:119-120). Isidore (orig. 18.14.1) considered Lat. cassis, -idis/-ida fem. 'metal helmet, galea' an Etruscan loan. Isidore's cassim has orthodox Latin -ss-, but a mocked-up acc. -m, cf. dial Lat. casila, and note that Lat. cassis, like lampas, is inflected as if it were a loan (Sabine < Etruscan?). Citation of inscriptions such as DEAE HARIASIAE (CIL 13.8188) from the second/third century AD is misleading in the extreme, apples and oranges comparisons. Finally, as Massimo Morandi confirms (p.c), hari- for *harja- is an anticipated Etruscoid outcome.
>
> ...
>
> Such conjectures notwithstanding, the epigraphic evidence points to probable visitation and/or training at the Magrè sanctuary, where Harigasti (as a goði) might well have familiarized himself with attributes of Rhetic ritual.
>
> We conclude that Negau B represents Rhetification of Germanic input within a specific cultural and epigraphic context: exit the Roman legionnaire of Callies and Düwel fame. The Rheticized Germanic of Negau B is on a par with the Rheticized Celtic of the Vadenà Stele. The Celtic inscriptions of Ia and Ic of Negau A are another matter: they represent fully grammatical Cisalpine Celtic in Rhetoid scripts. If they were on a linguistic par with Negau B and the Rheto-Celtic of the Vadenà Stele, then we would find siraku: turpes and tupnespnuapes (uel sim.) respectively.'
>
>
> FWIW.
>
>
> Torsten
>