Re: [tied] Fw: Sorok i devianosto

--- "Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > GK: If Piotr (or others) don't find anything
> > else, then perhaps this "sorok" + "sorochitsa" can
> be
> > added to our list of illusive cognates.
> > >
>
> Not just yet.
>
> Consider the following quotations from Dahl's
> _Dictionary of living
> Great Russian language_ (SPb, 1882):

*****GK: Let's. I don't have a Dahl handy, but I do
remember that sometimes he indicated the locality (or
localities) whence he took his examples. Do you have
this for your quotes?*****

>
> "_s�rokU_ ... sobolI ponyne^ prodajots'a _sorokami_
> ili _soroc^k�mi_,
> c^to i zov'otsia _s�bolI v s�rokaxU_ ... kaz^dyj
> _soroc^ekU_ (na
> polnuju s^ubu) vloz^enU vU c^axolU, v sor�c^ku"
>
> '_s�rokU_ ... saber (skins) up to this day are sold
> in _sorokU's_ or
> _soroc^�k_'s, and thus called _saber in s�rokU's_
> ... every
> _soroc^okU_ (that much it tooks to make a coat) is
> put in a bag
> [or 'sack','cover' -- S. T.] (called) _sor�c^ka_'

*****GK: "up to this day": that is to say up to the
2nd half of the 19th century. Which is a thousand
years after the initiation of trade relations between
Rus' and Byzantium (the earliest treaty is of 866. It
is not extant but we have probable segments from it
repeated in those which are). So the first thing we
have to deal with is the evolution of a word over that
length of time. The reason (originally) for using the
"40 kunitsja skins" as a unit is that this was the
exact equivalent (both in value and in weight acc. to
Nazarenko) of 1 Byzantine LITRA. Was that enough to
make a coat in the 9th c.? I'm not sure. But we can't
rule out that (1) the Dahl bag was a different
category from that of the Byzantine bound merchants;
and (2) that the explanation also indicates a
different trade situation. The Dahl "sorochka" sounds
like a latter day utilization of an earlier term, i.e.
what meant "the equivalent in marten skins (40) of one
litra" was later applied to the bag itself for a
different kind of transaction.******

>
> "_sor�c^ka_ ... c^axolU, me^s^okU, nade^vajemyj na
> s^tuku krasnago
> (ars^innago) tovara, oboloc^ka; c^axol na me^xU, na
> s^ubu i pr."
>
> '_sor�c^ka_ ... cover [or 'bag' -- S. T.], sack put
> on piece of
> drapery, covering; a bag (or 'sack', 'cover') for
> fur, a (fur) coat
> etc.'
>
> Vasmer (being one of the most eminent specialists in
> (East) Slavic
> Grecisms) thinks that "...the explanation from
> Middle Greek
> _sar�konta_ '40' is problematic in view of early
> (9th c.) deletion
> of -ko- (cf. Modern Greek _sar�nta_ '40')."

*****GK: But he doesn't say impossible. Does he have
evidence of a universal deletion of -ko- in "trade
talk" by 866? ******

>
> So it's the time to add this _sorokU_ and
> _sar�konta_ to our list of
> illusive cognates.
>
> Sergei

******GK: I think I'll stick with sorok and sorochka
for the time being. Well, add soroka (the bird) and
sraka (:=))) ******

>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com