If we must continue this etymological thread, the English noun "human" is formed from the same-sounding adjective which in turn came through the French "humain" from the latin adjective "humanus", the cognate latin noun being "homo". The old English cognate word was "guma", which in turn is related to "groom". Thus: bridegroom = man of the bride. All these words have to do with earth/soil (latin "humus", reconstructed indo-european form: *(dhe-)ghomos), so human literally means earthling.

Huginn (actually two n:s in the nominative) is to be analysed hug/in/r = "mind/the/masculine nominative ending" = the mind (or thought, sense). Hard word to translate that.
And muninn = mun/in/r = "memory/the/masc.nom.ending" = the memory. Hardly obfuscation that. I'm sorry, but I've taken three terms of comparative indo-european studies. And why "Paulist"? Irrelevant anti-christian platitudes, anyone?
EF

william <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 21 August, 2004 14:09, Eva Hedin wrote:
> Human is a latin word and has nothing to do with the norse and german word "hugin".
This is Paulist obfuscation.


Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor