From: Torsten
Message: 67065
Date: 2011-01-10
>Odd, given the size of those other corpuses.
> 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 onomasticTwo certainlys.
> theme even in those dialects in which it didn't survive as
> an appellative.
> [...]And a clearly. No OHG form with -tt- is attested.
>
> > Judging from OHG, we'd have to assume a *raxo:- suffix in
> > the "duck" word.
>
> Have to? Clearly not.
> >> [...]Do you want to tell me? As far as I can see, an opaque, not independently existing second element is a suffix.
>
> >> 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.