From: stlatos
Message: 66635
Date: 2010-09-23
>earlier:
> On 2006-07-22 22:30, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> 2. What is the singular form of Vanir?
> >
> > Vanr.
> >
> >> If Vanir belongs to the u-class, why it was not Vo,nir? or
> >> Venir, with i-umlaut? cf. Áss, Aesir (<*Ansuz, *Ansiwiz)
> >
> > I believe that it's an i-stem; short i-stems usually don't
> > show i-umlaut (e.g., <staðr>, nom.pl. <staðir>).
>
> Another possibility is an a-stem with a suppletive i-stem plural
> (historically a "tribal" collective).
>
> Piotr
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> I repeat (since I have already explained this) and expand a little: the correct singular is Vanr (actually used of of Njörd), declined like an ordinary a-stem masculine (which it is: *wanaz). The plural in -ir is neither irregular nor analogical but reflects a Germanic _collective_ (like ON Danir 'the Danes' and several other tribal nouns, or OE Engle, etc.), behaving like an i-stem (-ir < *-i:z < *-ijiz). In ON the collective suffix did not trigger palatal umlaut in the root (though it often did in OE). Some ethnonyms could have both a normal plural and a "collective plural", e.g. ON Húnar/Húnir or OE Seaxan/Seaxe.
>
> Hope this helps and stops that Wagnerian speculation.
>
> Piotr
I don't see any reason for a "collective" < *-eyes or anything similar. The only possibility that makes sense to me is opt. analogy in o-stems (-o:s / -oi < pronouns). In (some?) Gmc, final unstressed -ai > -ei; analogic -iz ( < -es ) added to make it "look plural"; *-eyiz; in WGmc e>i before umlaut; in NGmc e>i after umlaut.
As to this particular word, its origin likely separates it from the explanation above for native words (only in the historical sense), since it's likely borrowed from a non-Gmc language spoken by those who worshipped Ing, etc., before. I'd say con. w Väinämöinen; the sky god * waNyámö? > waN?ámöy > waN?áway > wanáway dis> wanáy [then ana. as if plural > 'gods of the _'].