Please help me bury a dead horse

First, my apologies for even touching this subject again...
I'm still trying to counter the arguments of those who insist upon a linguistic connection between the Hermae pillars (and Hermes) and the Irminsul.

It's unfortunate in that I who am pretty incompetent when it comes to linguistics, am forced to try and explain things to those even less skilled than myself.

I'm hoping you guys can review this and point out if I've made any mistakes?



Regarding the etymology of OHG irmin; OE eormen; and ON jörmun:

From what I gathered from our previous discussion (primarily the input of Piotr, Andrew, and Brian in the thread "PGmc question"), these terms lack a perfectly clear etymology.
However if I understood things correctly, OHG Ir-, OE Eor-, and ON Jör- can only come from what are described as "conditioned variants" of *Er- with short *e. Thus the PGmc origin must have been *Airmana-/*ermana-. Is that correct ??

--------

Regarding the etymology of Hermes and the Hermae: (from the thread "Hermes again")

DGK suggested the IE root *ser- 'to line up, join together, connect' - given in the AHDIER as *ser-(3), This then giving rise to the Att.-Ion. *herme: 'articulate speech'.

While Marius suggested the original IE root *ser-(2) 'to flow, to rush, to follow'. Eventually resulting in something akin to 'the one that follows the paths' (the God of Travellers - the Messenger of Gods)

I *assume* an etymology for the Hermae would be almost identical at least in terms of the root of the word?

--------

Therefore, in order to disprove the theory of Irminsul and Hermae being cognates, I need only prove that PGmc *Airmana-/*ermana- is not likely to develop out of PIE *ser-(2) or *ser-(3) ?

Which leads to the million dollar question - can the PGmc *Airmana-/*ermana- develop out of PIE *ser-(2) or *ser-(3) ??


As always, I greatly appreciate any help you gentlemen can provide!

Sincerely,
Aydan