Re: [tied] Re: plough

On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:20:26 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
>> --- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:08:54 -0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:
>> >
>> > >--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >In the latter case you would expect the
>> > >name of the product to be derivable in the language spoken in
>the
>> > >region (cf "plough" from *pl- "swim" or "split").
>> >
>> > PIE *pl- becomes fl- in Germanic, so no.
>> >
>> I am actually aware of that.
>> Which is why I proposed that it is a loan in Germanic, see
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/9145
>> and above.
>>
>> Torsten
>
>Many linguists (including those of Germanic origin, if this matters)
>treat Germanic 'plough'-word as an import from the south, probably
>from the Pannonian region or whereabout (some extremists even insist
>on pre-Slavic as a source). If Miguel has his objections, what is an
>alternative native etymology then?

I have no opinion on the matter, other than that the word is probably
a borrowing (*p- sort of gives it away). From the context ("In the
latter case [i.e. the item was dicovered in the region] you would
expect the name of the product to be derivable in the language spoken
in the region (cf "plough" from *pl- "swim" or "split")") I got the
impression that Torsten was implying that "plough" was a native word
in Germanic. To which I objected.