Re: Tudrus

At 5:25:30 AM on Friday, January 7, 2011, Torsten wrote:

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

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

[...]

>>> 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.

> Definitely, except you seem to have forgotten that *-ri:k
> was not a 'free word' in Germanic. There is no Germanic
> *ri:k- "king".

It's directly reflected only in Goth. <reiks>, but it
certainly existed. And it certainly produced an onomastic
theme even in those dialects in which it didn't survive as
an appellative.

[...]

> Judging from OHG, we'd have to assume a *raxo:- suffix in
> the "duck" word.

Have to? Clearly not.

>> [...]

>> 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.

> 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.

I see: you don't know what is meant by 'theme' in this
context.

Brian