From: andythewiros
Message: 66758
Date: 2010-10-13
>OHG <irmin->, OE <eormen->, ON <jörmun-> can only come from PGmc *ermina-, *ermana-, or *ermuna- (probably in that order too, with regard to the respectively OHG, OE, and ON words). Suffix alternation *-ana/-ina/-una (as well as *-ala/-ila/-ula and *-ara/-era/-ura) was relatively common in early Germanic, sometimes persisting into the attested languages. The form <airmana-> is based on Gothic *aírman-, in which in Gothic orthography <aí> represents the [E] sound from PGmc *e before *r and *h (also *i before *r and *h). But the PGmc form is *ermana-, not *airmana-. *Airman- is merely the Gothic _spelling_ of *erman-, not the original root. By the way, Gerhard Köbler says that *ermana- probably meant "enormous, huge".
> 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 ??
>Absolutely not. PIE *s- was never lost in initial position in Germanic. The only cases where it might appear to have been lost are cases in which *s-mobile occurred in PIE, e.g. *ker- beside *sker- 'cut'. However such alternations always occurred in PIE only, in PGmc the *s- was always preserved if it occurred in PIE (and did not occur if it did not occur in PIE - hence it is theoretically possible to find words in Germanic with *sk- < PIE *sk- beside words with *h- < PIE k- which are related in meaning; I don't know any proven examples although I can speculate that OE hy:dan 'hide' might be related to OE scu:a 'shade' (and some other words) because of an s-mobile alternation in PIE. Note however that Germanic initial h- always comes from PIE *k- or *k'-, never from PIE *s- as in the examples mentioned above. Greek Herme:s, Hermae as well as Germanic *ermana- can not have derived from *kerm- or *k'erm-, and again *ermana- can definitely not have derived from *serm-.
> --------
>
> 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) ??