From: Torsten
Message: 67045
Date: 2011-01-07
>Yes, it is a very contentious issue.
> 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 haveIt tells us that Danish speakers did not analyze <anddrage> as a compound of <and> and <drage>, since no *andedrage has been recorded.
> >>> 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)It's an interesting question
> >>> 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 youNot in Danish or German since the time of the Landsknechte, AFAIK. And a loan to Danish from High German before that time is unlikely.
> nothing either way: d-epenthesis in /nr/ and b-epenthesis in
> /mr/ are common as mud.
> [...]Definitely, except you seem to have forgotten that *-ri:k was not a 'free word' in Germanic. There is no Germanic *ri:k- "king".
>
> >> 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 alsoThat's interesting for the light it sheds on the meaning of *wo:d- in Woden.
> >> <wuotrīhhī> 'tyranny', we may have the 'king' word (or
> >> influence from it) here as well.
> > It seems there are three suffixesBy definition it would not be a suffix if *ri:k- "king" had been a Germanic word.
> > 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 appellativesWhat is a 'free morpheme'? *ri:k- is not a free word.
> are free morphemes.
> > 3) -rik, the merger of 1) and 2)Judging from OHG, we'd have to assume a *raxo:- suffix in the "duck" word.
>
> > 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.
> [...]Unless *ri:k- was at that time a free word in Germanic, it's not a dithematic name, but a monothematic one with a suffix.
>
> >>>>>> 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 *Ãiudareiks (LLat. <Theodoricus>) is prettyI just told you, but again: the question is whether *-rik- at that time had already developed into a simple suffix, as it is attested later.
> >>>> clearly from *Ãiuðo:-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.