From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 56303
Date: 2008-03-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"[...]
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 11:23:22 AM on Sunday, March 30, 2008, tgpedersen
>> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>>>> AHD4 s.v. <ling>: ME, possibly of LG origin, with aNo? Then perhaps you should try for more content and less
>>>> reference to a PIE root *del-(1), where a stronger
>>>> assertion is made: that it's from ME <lenge, ling, ling>,
>>>> from a LG source akin to Dutch <lenghe, linghe>, 'long
>>>> one', from PGmc *langitho:.
>>> That well-known fish, the 'length'? Haha, funny man.
>> 'Ling possesses a long slender body that can reach 2
>> metres in length' (Wikip. s.v. <Common ling>).
>> 'The ling has long, slender body and a distinct beard on
>> the lower jaw. ... The ling can reach a length of 2.2
>> meters.' (The Marine Fauna Gallery of Norway,
>> <http://www.seawater.no/fauna/Fisk/lange.htm>)
>> The pictures show a long, slender, rather eel-like fish
>> for which 'the long one' seems quite appropriate.
> No one denied that it was a long fish.
>>>> Incidentally, ON <langa> was borrowed into OIr asThere are very few 'musts' in historical linguistics, but
>>>> <langa>.
>>> The obvious objection is that there is no reason why the
>>> Irish should borrow a name for that fish from the
>>> Scandinavians.
>> They also borrowed ON <þorskr> 'codfish', as <trosc>.
> Oddly enough, so did the Baltic Finns, Est. tursk.
> Therefore it must be Germanic?