Re: Tudrus

At 5:17:40 AM on Thursday, January 6, 2011, Torsten wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@>
>> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <bm.brian@> wrote:

>>>> At 7:54:08 PM on Saturday, January 1, 2011, Rick
>>>> McCallister wrote:

>>>>> From: Torsten <tgpedersen@>

>> [...]

>>>>>> There is a suffix *-ri:k in German Enterich, Da.
>>>>>> andrik, Engl. drake (*and- "duck")

>>>> No suffix there: the vowel isn't long, and the second
>>>> element is probably a WGmc. *drako or the like, perhaps
>>>> originally an independent word for 'male duck'.

>>> Obviously there is a suffix:
>>> Da. and "duck", andrik "drake"
>>> Grm. Ente "duck", Enterich "drake"
>>> Grm. Taube "pigeon", Täuberich "male pigeon"
>>> http://ordnet.dk/ods/ordbog?query=andrik&search=S%C3%B8g
>>> http://runeberg.org/svetym/0099.html

>> There is a suffix, derived from the Gmc. anthroponymic
>> deuterotheme, but it doesn't appear in the 'male duck' word.

> Hellquist thinks it might. Or simply 'an andrake' -> 'a
> drake'.

And I, along with quite a few others, think that it probably
doesn't.

[...]

>>> (the form anddrake etc shows your *drako can't have
>>> originally meant "drake", if it did, the first element
>>> could not have served a purpose of specifying further the
>>> -drake part and thus have been superfluous, perhaps that's
>>> Suolahti's idea too; we should probably proceed from
>>> andrake)

>> On the contrary, the first part could very well have been
>> added to differentiate a 'male duck' word from the 'dragon'
>> word.

> Not likely. Although the Swedish combining form is and-
> (eg. andfåglar http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andf%C3%A5glar
> "Anseriformes") the Danish one is ande- (eg. andefugle
> http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andefugle ) not *and-.

I frankly doubt that this tells us much about the prehistory
of the word.

>>> cf. also fenrik (appr. staff sergeant)
>>> http://ordnet.dk/ods/ordbog?query=f%C3%A6ndrik&search=S%C3%B8g

>> Na, und? It's a borrowing of German <Fähnrich>, which is a
>> NHG extension of MHG <venre>, OHG <faneri>, under the
>> influence of masculine names originally in *-ri:kaz.

> More likely, in spite of most dictionaries, from Dutch
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaandrig
> cf. the -d-.

It pretty clearly goes the other way. And the <d> tells you
nothing either way: d-epenthesis in /nr/ and b-epenthesis in
/mr/ are common as mud.

[...]

>> There are a few apparent OHG examples of the suffix derived
>> from the onomastic theme, mostly plant names. <Hederīh>
>> 'hedge mustard' is probably from Latin <hederaceous> under
>> the influence of personal names in <-rīh>; <wegarīh>
>> 'plantain' may actually contain the 'king' word.

> Ernout-Meillet:

[...]

> So it seems that whatever the origin, the suffix was there
> from the beginning.

That was, indeed, the point. But the specific form that it
takes in German definitely appears to be influenced by the
'king' word.

>> Then there's <wuotrih> 'tyrant', but since there's also
>> <wuotrīhhī> 'tyranny', we may have the 'king' word (or
>> influence from it) here as well.

> It seems there are three suffixes
> 1) the 'domestic bird' suffix
> 2) -ri:k-, the "king" suffix

By definition this is not a suffix. Both the onomastic
theme and the element of compound appellatives are free
morphemes.

> 3) -rik, the merger of 1) and 2)

> The question is how far back we can assume 3) existed.

The first question is whether (1) exists as an independent
suffix in the first place.

[...]

>>>>>> possibly Gothic Ermanaric(?)

>>>> That's a straightforward dithematic name in <-ri:k>.

>>> But the first theme is identical to that of Arminius.

>> Quite possibly; so what? It's not as if simplex names
>> were exactly thin on the ground.

> No, the question was whether a suffix -rik could be added
> to a simplex name. If the first theme of Ermanaric is
> identical to the theme of Arminius, it seems it could.

Hardly. Given the onomastic evidence as a whole, the
obvious and parsimonious conclusion is that <Ermanaric> is a
perfectly normal dithematic name with the common
deuterotheme from *-ri:kaz.

>>>> Gothic *Þiudareiks (LLat. <Theodoricus>) is pretty
>>>> clearly from *Þiuðo:-ri:kaz and unrelated to the Gk.
>>>> name.

>>> Unless -ri:k- is a suffix.

>> In a masculine name? One can imagine all sorts of
>> fanciful things when one is unconstrained by the
>> evidence.

> The constraining evidence here is the existence of
> Arminius/Ermanaric.

I can't imagine why you think that this is any more
significant than any other example of a dithematic name
sharing its prototheme with a simplex name.

> In the case of Theodor/Theodoric the suffix would rather
> be the -ik of tauber/Täuberich and ganser/Gänserich.

> Ie. a diminutive suffix, which would mean that Teodoric =
> little Theodor, Teddy.

I've yet to see any evidence that <Täuberich> and
<Gänserich> contain a diminutive suffix. Or for that matter
that they're relevant at all, since both are late creations.

Brian