--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Haukur Thorgeirsson"
<haukurth@...> wrote:

> > I'm sorry, the etymologies involving /kona/, /Konr/ and /ungr/ are
> > simply wrong (folk etymologies).
> > The right one (and the only possible) is from /kyn/.
>
> Absolute certainty is a commodity that is usually not
> so readily available to the historical linguist.
>
> I don't have my books at hand but I think it was
> Otto von Friesen who made the case for *kvenungr.
>
> It doesn't look likely to me but I would be interested
> in looking at his argument before dismissing it.
>
> Kveðja,
> Haukur

Hello!

Proto-Germanic reconstruction gives us a protoform /*kuningaz/ "king".
Old Norse points to a variant /*kunungaz/. This accounts for all
attestations of the word in all known Germanic languages.
So English /king/ < Anglo-Saxon /cyning/, and so on.
There is nothing able to justify a connection with /*kwin-/. The
ablaut is quite different in the word for woman: Gothis has /qino/
and /qens/, etc...
Old Norse /kona/ "woman" (genitive plural /kvenna/) points also
to /*kwino:n/. Regularity is perfect.
And in some non-Germanic languages the Proto-Germanic word *kuningaz
is found as an ancient loanword: Finnish /kuningas/ "king".
All this gives us "absolute" certainty.
In other cases I admit something near truth is very difficult to
achieve.

Kveðja,
Marco