Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[tied] Re: Tudrus

Expand Messages
  • Torsten
    ... Yes, it is a very contentious issue. ... It tells us that Danish speakers did not analyze as a compound of and , since no
    Message 1 of 140 , Jan 7, 2011
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
      > 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.

      Yes, it is a very contentious issue.

      > >>> (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.

      It tells us that Danish speakers did not analyze <anddrage> as a compound of <and> and <drage>, since no *andedrage has been recorded.

      > >>> 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.

      It's an interesting question
      has no -d- in the quoted forms, but it does in the 1726 Saxon quote.

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

      Not in Danish or German since the time of the Landsknechte, AFAIK. And a loan to Danish from High German before that time is unlikely.

      > [...]
      > >> 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.

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

      > >> 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.

      That's interesting for the light it sheds on the meaning of *wo:d- in Woden.

      > > It seems there are three suffixes
      > > 1) the 'domestic bird' suffix
      > > 2) -ri:k-, the "king" suffix
      > By definition this is not a suffix.

      By definition it would not be a suffix if *ri:k- "king" had been a Germanic word.

      > Both the onomastic theme and the element of compound appellatives
      > are free morphemes.

      What is a 'free morpheme'? *ri:k- is not a free word.

      > > 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.

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

      > [...]
      > >>>>>> 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.

      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.

      > >>>> 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.

      I 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.

    • Torsten
      ... Found it http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/AlfredSchmidt.jpg after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/1902_tuxen.jpg Mostly
      Message 140 of 140 , Mar 18, 2011
        > > And a bit earlier, Denmark lost
        > > some areas to Germany (perhaps it resented
        > > losing Hannover as well).
        > We have never had Hannover, and nobody here resented losing German-
        > speaking Holstein, other than perhaps the royal family. What they
        > did resent was losing the once completely, then partially Danish-
        > speaking Schleswig, to the degree the Kaiser Wilhelm was getting the
        > cold shoulder at
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredensborg_Palace
        > whenever the family (
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_IX
        > had managed to marry off one daughter
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_of_Denmark
        > to the king of England and another
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Feodorovna_(Dagmar_of_Denmark)
        > to the tsar of Russia) met there every summer, because the Germans
        > were attempting to eindeutschen the Danes in Schleswig, which didn't
        > happen, to the consternation of the Germans, since they believed the
        > Danes would happily accept becoming Germans (there was a famous
        > cartoon in a satirical magaziene here then: Kaiser Wilhelm had sent
        > a telegram to the Royal family after having been to Fredensborg, to
        > the effect that he felt as a 'Sohn des Hauses'; the cartoon, with
        > the caption 'En Søn af Huset', was of the Kaiser sitting like a kid,
        > and dressed as such, with his familiar Schnurrbart, at the foot of
        > the throne, in a sort of arranged family tableau in the style of the
        > time). I suspect Gustaff Kossinna's idea of picking Demmark as the
        > home of all Germanic peoples came from some desire to placate the
        > Danes, it doesn't fit the linguistic and archaeological facts.

        Found it

        Mostly OT, so I'll stop this thread here.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.