Raymond Brown wrote:
> At 9:22 am +0100 27/4/00, yl-ruil wrote:
> >Raymond Brown wrote:
> [....]
> >>
> >> Latin auro:ra (with long o) is derived quite regularly from earlier
> >> *a:uso:sa which, in turn is from a root *a:uso:s (note long initial a).
> >> The latter came into protoGreek as *a:uho:s --> *ha:wo:s, from which we
> >> have, as expected - Homeric he:o:s (<-- *he:wo:s, with loss of [w]
> >> 'digamma'), Corinthian ha:wo:s, Attic heo:s (with shortening of initial
> >> vowel) and Ionic e:o:s.
> >
> >Where has the long initial a come from?
>
> GREEK.
>
> >The Latin auro:ra comes from
> >auso:sa:, with long _final_ a,
>
> Yes, yes - I'm well aware that the final -a of the 1st declension was
> originally long in PIE and thus, presumably, in ProtoLatin. I am also
well
> aware that it had become short by the Latin period. I don't really see
the
> relevance, other than to ask why *a:uso:s (which is ProtoGreek, and
remains
> happily in the 3rd decl. in Greek), got the extra -a added to it?
The vagaries of diachronic language change?
> >cognate to Aeolian aúo:s.
>
> <groan> Sorry I didn't quote all the recorded Greek forms.
> I'll try again (all given in the nominative singular form):
>
> Homeric he:ó:s
> Ionic e:ó:s
> Attic héo:s
> Corinthian ha:wo:s
> Doric a:o:s (also: a:bo:r)
> Aiolic aúo:s (prob. = /a:wo:s/)
> Boiotian a:a:s
>
> (We know the pitch accents only of the Homeric, Ionian (incl. Attic) and
> Aiolic dialects).
My source only gave the Aeolic, so I thought I ought to mention it ;).
> The Greek forms could derive either from *sa:wo:s or *a:wso:s. The Greek
> makes sense if and only if the _first_ a- was originally long. It is
> assumed that *a:wso:s is cognate with the Latin form; if this is so, the
> only reconstruction that makes sense is *a:uso:s-a:
Agreed, for Greek and Latin, but would PIE *a:u give PG *au (short first
element)? That's what we have reconstructed.
> >OK, I seem to have caused some confusion. When I gave all the forms, I
> >neglected to add in diacritics, because they're a hassle to read for some
> >people, but here goes:
> >
> >Old English: éastre, Old Frisian: ásteron, Old High German: óstarún, all
> >>from PG *austrôn-. This is related to "east", naturally. Note how the
> >suffix -ôn is used to form the name of the goddess, similar to the Celtic
> >process, whereby Welsh Mabon < *mapo:nos < mapos "son".
>
> OK - if the goddess's name is really Éastron there's no problem. I've
only
> ever seen her name quoted without the long mark, and then only from the
> Bede source.
Manuscripts are inconsistent about marking length.
<snip>
> >> Do we have, indeed, independent evidence about this goddess - other
than
> >> what Bede tells us? What exactly was she goddess of? When was her
> >> festival? Was it actually at the Vernal Equinox itself or was the moon
> >> also used in calculating the exact date?
> >
> >There is no way we can be sure, pre-literate Anglo-Saxons were not big on
> >writing things down, and why would Christans preserve any more than
minimal
> >information on the faith they were trying to stamp out?
>
> It happens occasionally - and sometimes there is epigraphic evidence.
It's
> even known for pagan Romans (and Greeks) to record matters. There could
be
> other evidence. I just wanted to know.
Don't know. I remember reading a few sources, but can't actually remember
their names.
> My sources are meagre. Indeed, the only thing I can establish is that
Bede
> says Easter was named from the pagan Saxon goddess Esotre/Eastre. If
that
> is the only evidence then IMHO it is very weak evidence that she ever
> existed at all. I really do want to know if there is other, more certain
> evidence.
ETYMOLOGY! (if you can shout Greek ;)) If it turns up in all of the Germanic
languages, surely there is something behind it?
----
Bengesko niamso.
Cursed German.
----
Dan Morrison (http://www.geocities.com/yl_ruil/index.html)