Re: b/m alternation in Thacian, Illyria and Abanian

At 4:08:01 AM on Sunday, April 6, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

[...]

>> <Þorskr> would appear to be regularly derived from
>> *þurskaz. The k-suffix in animal names is usually found
>> in weak masculines (as <-ki>), but there is <eyrnablaðkr>
>> 'earlobe' (<blað> 'a leaf').

> I don't get it. It's *þurs-k-az because an earlobe is an
> animal?

Just giving an example of the same suffix forming an a-stem
noun.

> I like the etymology of your proposal, but I don't think
> the word is Germanic, possibly it's para-Germanic. I don't
> know of any forms of Da. tør, Sw. torr "dry" (Da. tørre,
> Sw. torka v. "dry", Da. tørke, Sw. torka "drought") which
> has kept -rs-.

Of course not: PScand. *rz > Common Scand. rr is regular.

> What makes people so certain Engl. torsk must be a loan?

English <tusk, tursk, torsk, tosk> 'a gadoid fish, Brosmius
brosme' makes a late appearance (earliest OED citation
1707), and the forms are exactly what's to be expected of a
borrowing of Norw. <to(r)sk>, Dan. & Swe. <torsk>.

> If names of fish of the Atlantic can't be substrate, I
> don't know what could.

This is a solution looking for a problem. We have here an
ON word with a perfectly good Gmc. etymology, borrowed at an
early date into EIr and Finn. (which makes good historical
sense), borrowed much later into English (which also makes
sense); there's nothing here even to suggest a substrate,
let alone to require one.

Brian