Re: Dream

--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:

>
>
> >> And while we're at it, it's also hard to believe that Eng. dream

and Latin dormio: are unrelated, but that's a fact. The collection's
growing ;-)

>
> TP:
> > I think you want to say: not derivable from the same root using

known derivation rules. That's a fact.

>
> That's the definition of "unrelated" in historical linguistics.

There's simply no common denominator for the two even if you relax
the discipline of comparison a little. Borrowing from a common source
is not likely either, especially as no such source can be proposed.

A-hem!

>
> > Isn't BTW <dream> one of the Germanic 30%-words?
>
> It's quite likely a derivative of PIE *dHreugH- 'deceive, delude',

cf. Ger. trügen, ON draugr 'apparition': *dHrougH-mo- > *draugma- >
*drauma-.

>

BTW the text of the first written-down Danish tune starts <drømdæ mik
en drøm ...>. Note the accusative, not dative. You didn't dream then.
You were being dreamt. Cf. methinks.

> Piotr