A. a `water' and ei `(female) sheep' (Miedema 1987: 175ff).
It remains unclear whether this element ƒ- is also found in ƒ-pal (cf. sub A.). It does appear in OFris. (not R1) ƒburch `dike of a polder', A¯bert NP (Miedema 1987: 177-8).
Proto-Frisian: *ƒ (< *awj-) Germanic cognates: Gmc. -avia by classical authors, e.g. Sca(n)dinavia Plin., also Oium, Auha NL (Jordanes), ON ey `island', OE –(e)g, Œg(lond), OHG -ouwa, -awa, MHG o(u)we, MLG ou(we), oy(e), ODu. ¡i, owe `meadow, peninsula, river', Mod.Germ. Aue, also OSwe agh-borre, ƒ-borre `(river)bass', MDu. ouwe, ooy `meadow', Mod.Du. (land)ouw, ooiPerhaps, the attested variants arose in different phonological environments (Miedema 1987: 175-6, after Rooth):
(1) *awi > *ewi (i-Umlaut) > ei in OFris. ei-lond (2) *aw#j- > auj- > OFris. ƒ, ODu. ¡i (> MDu. ooy etc.) (no i-UL and monophthogisation of *au)
(3) *a#wj- > *awwj- > MDu. ouwe etc., Mod.Germ. Aue (WGm. gemination)
Similarly Van Loon 48.
Proto-Germanic: *a(g)wj¡ Proto-Indo-European: *h2ekw- (cf. sub A.)I assume an original i-st. *aiw-i- > *ƒwi- > OFris. Œ, OE …(w) (Brunner 116).
OFris. ƒ- arose in the non-umlauted oblique case forms, e.g. Ds *aiwai < *aiwŒi (cf. also Steller 14). By-forms Œwe, Œwa < *aiwj¡n- (Aofr. 24, Steller 22).
Proto-Frisian: *ƒ, *Œ (i-UL) Germanic cognates: OE …(w) `law, marriage', OS Œo, Œwa `law', OHG Œwa, `law, marriage', MHG Œwe, Œ, MLG Œwe, Œ, ODu. Œwa `law', MDu. Œwe, ee `law, marriage'. Proto-Germanic: *aiw-i- Comments on Indo-European reconstruction: No certain IE etymology.It is difficult to connect the Gmc. forms with Lat. aequus `equal, fair' (cf.
Walde - Hoffmann, especially Ernout - Meillet s.v.; pace De Vries, Franck - Van Wijk - Van Haeringen s.v. echt 1.).
At first sight, a connection with Skt. yo´h· `hail!', Av. yao¼-dadƒiti `makes holy', Lat. i³s < OLat. ious < *ieuos [s-st.] would seem an attractive alternative (perhaps also Alb. jŒ `permission', cf. Ernout - Meillet s.v. i³s, p.11; on the etymology, cf. also Schrijver 273, Walde - Hofmann s.v. i³s), but the formal complications cannot be overcome. PIE *h2ieuos would yield PGmc. *jawaz, which form shows the wrong vocalism in the stem; moreover, it would have retained *j-. The assumption of schwebe-ablaut in *h2e/oiuos > PGmc. *aiwaz >> *aiwez (after the oblique stem *aiwez-, as in OE, cf. Boutkan 1992: 14) > *aiwiz (joins i-stems) yields the right result but is ad hoc. Similarly Seebold 1981: 92 (after an idea of Hirt), but not in accordance with modern insights as to IE ablaut.
Pace Seebold (loc. cit.) and e.g. Lendinara 294, Lehmann s.v. aiws (+ reff.), the meaning `law' is not to be regarded as a semantic specialisation of PIE *h2ei-u- `long time' (POK 17-18 `Lebenskraft'), as attested in Goth. aiws `time, eternity', ON „vi, „fi `life, age', OHG Œw–n `eternity' etc.; on this etymon cf. 3. a-. Overlapping meanings in OHG and in OFris. Œwelik `forever' next to ewe `law' (Richt. 584) simply are due to homonymy of two different words (thus explicitly Franck - Van Wijk - Van Haeringen s.v. echt, Walde - Hofmann s.v. i³s).
The latter suggest connection with *(h1)ei- `go', cf. *h1oi-uo- > Skt. e´va- `Gang, Sitte' (POK 293-7, esp. 295-6); although this is a single correspondence, it seems attractive.
See also: afte, asegaOFris. variants are distributed according to the occurrence of i-Umlaut: Œ (> –) < *aiw-iN (i-st.; cf. OE …, Goth. aiws) next to ƒ < *aiw-aN (o-st.; OE ƒ), cf.
Aofr. 23. In spite of von Richthofen's (585) claim, ƒ occurs as a separate word, e.g. ...thet hi a umbe thet hus sextich merk selle... (VIII,16) `...so zahle er jedesmal fµr das Haus sechzig Mark...' (translation from Buma/Ebel 1963: 79; in this connection cf. also Oosterhout 1969: 90).
Proto-Frisian: *ƒ Germanic cognates: Goth. (ni) aiw `(n)ever', ON „, ei, ey, OE ƒ, ¡, OS Œ¢o, io, OHG io, MHG ie, –, MLG io, ie, –, jŒ, j–, ODu. io `always', MDu. ooit < *¡ jet (?; cf. De Vries s.v.). Proto-Germanic: *aiw- Proto-Indo-European: *h2ei-u- Page in Pokorny: 17-18 Comments on Indo-European reconstruction: Lat. aevum `time of life, eternity' < *h2eiu-o-, Skt. ƒ´yu, Av. ƒyu `life (force), etc.' < *h2oiu-, Goth. aiws < *h2oiu-is, etc. Bibliography: Lendinara 294; Oosterhout 1969 See also: abel, ahwedder, a(u)wet, ewichOR an, OE an, on, OS,OHG an, MHG,MLG an, ODu., MDu. an
Proto-Germanic: *anŒ (beside *an-V) Comments on Germanic: A group of adverbs/prepositions shows the correspondence Goth. -a/OR -a/ON -o//OE -e/OS -a,-e/OHG, ODu. -a. This suggests that they are to be derived from forms in *-Œ, i.e. old instrumentals (Hollifield 1980: 145-6, Boutkan 383-4). The group of forms lacking the second vowel can either represent originally enclitic use of the long forms (as to Runic e.g. Gutenbrunner 1951: 42) or another formation, cf. Av. ana `over', anu `(according) to' etc., Gr. ana´ etc. with short final vowel (cf. further Schmidt 203ff, also Lehmann s.v. ana).P-Fris. **an < *anV or enclitic *anŒ would, however, not lose its final vowel unless the form was unstressed (Steller 26). In view of the by-form OFris. an, on (q.v.), we have to assume a P-Fris. doublet *a´n ¬ (enclitic) *a(n), yielding on/an and a respectively. XXX
Proto-Indo-European: *h2en-eh1 (next to *h2en-V/H•) Page in Pokorny: 39-40 Comments on Indo-European reconstruction: cf. Gr. a´n¡ `to above' (adv.), next to ana´ `on, along, to above' and above Av. forms.The OHG variants ir-, ar- can hardly represent old ablaut forms and probably indicate weakening of the vowel: /r-/ (Braune - Eggers 76).
Proto-Indo-European: *uts- Page in Pokorny: 1104 Comments on Indo-European reconstruction: The PIE etymology has been subject of dispute, cf. Lehmann s.v. us with reff., cf. Av. us (< *uts) vs. Skt. u´d-. See also: aliknia, onawinna, 4. ur-OFris. also Œ
NL wisurƒ most probably contains this etymon in view of wisur-aha and similar forms in old chronicles (Richt. 585). The form ƒ either represents contraction of (*ah(w)¡ >) *aho/ahu > *ao/au > ƒ, or *aho/ahu > *a(h)a > ƒ (Aofr. 47). In the former case, we have a parallel in OE Œa < *au (Brunner 110). In the latter case we must assume weakening of unstressed *u/o to *a and subsequent contraction (Aofr. 8, 242, also 55). Ds ƒ < *ahŒ¢ etc. or Ns used for Ds (Aofr. 47, also 139). On ƒpal cf. Miedema 1987: 178.
The OFris. by-form Œ (also ODu. Œ, Mod.Du. NL Ee) is sometimes labelled Ingveonic (e.g. Sch£nfeld 31). From a (dialect-)geographical point of view, this seems an adequate characterisation, because the form is found in both Frisian and coastal Dutch between Flanders and Groningen. However, the use of the term is quite confusing from a linguistic point of view, because it is the development *au > ƒ rather than the form Œ that is typically Ingveonic.
A distribution of the OFris. monophthongisation products Œ and ƒ < *ai has not yet been found (recently Nielsen 1983 + reff., Hofmann 1995, especially p. 28). The form Œ has been explained as an umlauted G/Ds of a f. consonantal stem *ahw-, cf. PGmc. *ahw-ez/-i > *ah-iz/-i > e(h)i > OE –e, Œ (Sievers 1884: 240; Van Helten 1889: 237-8; cf. also Brunner 228). Alternatively, one may postulate another secondary formation containing a vowel causing umlaut, e.g. a ieh2-stem (= Gmc. j¡-stem) or an i-stem.
Later narrowing of Œ is found in both Fris. and Dial.Du. (province of North Holland), cf. Soere Ie NL, Krommen-ie NL etc., respectively. Further details in Sch£nfeld 31-2.
Proto-Frisian: *ƒ (< *ahu), *Œ (i-UL) Germanic cognates: Goth. ahwa, ON o§´ (often spelled o´; later > a´), OE Œa, OS,OHG aha, MHG ahe(-), MLG ƒ, ODu. aha, [Gold-]a (NL), E¯ (NL), Mod.Du. Ee (NL) Proto-Germanic: *ahw¡ Proto-Indo-European: *h2ekweh2 Page in Pokorny: 23 Comments on Indo-European reconstruction: cf. Lat. aqua `water'; rest of the evidence in POK uncertain. For a discussion cf.Lehmann s.v. ahwa who summarizes and gives many reff. Also Schrijver 45.
The comparison of Gmc. *ahw- with *ƒ¢p-/up- (thus explicitly Van Helten, Sievers loc.cit.), cf. Ved. ƒ¢p- `water', OPruss. ape, Lith. u°pe† `river' etc. (POK 51-2) must be given up as pre-Gmc. *kw and IE *p simply do not correspond.
The status of *ab- in OIr ab, Lat. amnis `river' etc. (POK 1) also remains unclear; Wagner (1958: 69) compares the forms in -p as `...Dialektformen ein und desselben Wortes'.
Bibliography: Gildemacher 150 (with reff.); Lendinara 305 Notes: {1} N.B. Buma's lemma 1) a actually contains two lemmata, i.e. A. `water' and B. `island'.OFris. also ebbete, abba, abbet, awete OFris. ebbete < *abbŒ¢te shows regular fronting of the stem vowel before *-Œ¢- (Van Helten 1906: 173). This reconstructed form can regularly be derived from *abbƒte (loc.cit. fn.2). This would imply that borrowing preceded the fronting *-ƒ- > *-Œ- (i.e. under half-stress). The form containing e- being regular, abbit must have its a- after abba, where no fronting is to be expected (Van Helten 1906: 172, Steller 10, Campbell 1939: 94-5). The vowel a may also have been retained since we are dealing with a loan word used by the `learned' (Wollmann 533, fn. 83).
The alternative explanation of a- from a contamination of P-Fris. *abbut and *ebbit is improbable (thus Aofr. 1 under reference to Paul 1879: 227), since the occurrence of -ud in the second syllable is restricted to OE (see below).
There is no reason to assume *-ut in OFris., since it cannot represent an inherited ablaut form (e.g. *-ud- < As *-ad-uN, cf. Van Helten 1891 sub III) given both the late date of borrowing (when the ablauting dental stems probably were no longer a productive category anymore) and the lack of ablaut in the Latin source word abbƒs,-ƒtis.
Proto-Frisian: *ebbit Germanic cognates: ON abba´ti, abbati (<- OE, cf. De Vries 1977 s.v. a´bo´ti) {1},OE abbud,-od,-ad, OHG abbat, MHG ab(b)et, abt, MLG abbet, abt, MDu. abbet, abd, abt The WGm cognate forms suggest a source form containing -d(-), viz. Rom. abbƒde (post-Roman era: V/VIth century) < Lat. As abbƒtem (Ns abbƒs) from Gr. a´bbas from Aram. abbƒ `father'.
Bibliography: Buma 1969 s.v. abt; Holthausen list s.v. abba; Wollmann 533 fn 83 as to abba. Notes: {1} De Vries labels this by-form a´bo´ti as `ws. volksetym. umdeutung als `sitten-verbesserer''. However, Andrea De Leeuw van Weenen informs me that the oldest Norwegian MSS have abbote, whereas the conjecture to abba´ti is based on an unmotivated proposal by Sophus Bugge.OFris. also apel, abeil
The form apel must be a scribal error (Richt. loc.cit.: `...entstellt und nicht mehr etymologisch verstanden.'). On the by-form abeil, cf. the frequent interchange <Œ>/<ei>, cf. also breid, brŒd `bride' etc. (Holthausen 1924: 463; after Heinertz = contra Van Helten who equates beil and NHG Bµgel).
I found three etymologies, which all start from compounds of a- and bŒl `bump' (cf. s.v. bŒl); the crux is the identification of the meaning of a-: (1) above 6. a- (e.g. Buma 158)
(2) Von Richthofen (1840: 586 s.v.) assumes ƒ-bel `(lit.) Wasser-Beule' = `Eiter-Beule' ('pus-bump'), i.e. a compound with 1. ƒ- (contra Van Helten 1907: 5)
(3) Oosterhout (1969: 94,96) starts from 3. ƒ-, assuming a meaning `bliuwende bult' = `remaining bump'.
I feel most sympathetic toward the last explanation as the semantics fits well the kind of bump that is meant in the text, viz. a visible, remaining scar.
Proto-Frisian: *ƒbŒl See also: 3.,6. a-, -bel, insepthaThe final vowel was weakened in achte, lost in acht.
Proto-Frisian: *ahta Germanic cognates: Goth. ahtau, ON a´tta, OE eahta, OS/OHG ahto, MHG acht(e), MLG aht, eht, MDu. achte Proto-Germanic: *aht¡u Proto-Indo-European: *h3ek´teh1(u) Comments on Indo-European reconstruction: cf. Skt. as·t·ƒ´(u), Gr. okt¡´, Lat. oct¡, OIr. ocht etc.The Gmc. forms can be traced to one proto-form if one accepts a reconstruction *aht¡u, cf. Skt. as·t·au´.
Bibliography: Buma 1969 s.v. acht 2.
|
Help | ||||||
|
|||||||