--- Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski"
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:45 PM
> Subject: [tied] Sorok
> > I'll check <sorok> up in Comrie's article anyway,
> since I don't remember his specific objections to
> the "tessarakonta" etymology.
> I have looked it up. Comrie's objection to deriving
> <sorok> from Middle Greek <sarakost�:> or
> <sar�konta> is the same as Vasmer's: the early loss
> of <-ko-> in Greek.
*****GK: Just curious. Isn't the "ko" retained in
ordinal numbers? Was it reintroduced?******
On my way home from the library
> I realised that reliable information about dating
> the loss could probably be found in the very same
> book, in the chapter on Greek numerals,
*****GK: I take it that Sergei mentioned the 9th
century on the basis of his Vasmer?==== But other
important points should be checked here. There is no
doubt at all that whatever the changes in demotic (?)
Greek during the Middle period (and can we verify
whether this change operated simultaneously in all
known dialects?), "tessarokonta" as fourty was
retained both in the ecclesiastical (incl. the
liturgical) language, and in the language of the law.
It apparently continued to be used by the
"classicizers" (like Photius), and in schools. So any
conclusions about the problematic aspect of a
derivation of East Slavic "sorok" from Greek
"tessarokonta" is itself problematic, methinks. And
one does not even have to fall back on the supposition
I made earlier (viz. an emergence in the 7th/8th c. as
part of the East Slavic/Chersonesos trade
and I had
> foolishly forgotten to check it. Damn! It'll have to
> wait till tomorrow.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.