Re: Negau

From: tgpedersen
Message: 60451
Date: 2008-09-28

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/27/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> (Golomb:) Now the problem is whether we need the Germc.
> intermediary in the borrowing of this Danubian or Pannonian word
> *plo:go- by Slavic. The crucial point is the treatment of /o:/:
> Proto-Germanic in its later period had /o:/ (close!), so a Danubian-
> Illyrian (or Venetic) *plo:ga- was borrowed after the first
> consonant shift as PGermc. *plo:ga-, , whence ultimately NHG Pflug,
> NE plough, etc. Of course, this PGermc. form would regularly be
> rendered by the Slavs at the time of the monophthongization of
> diphthongs (4th-6th centuries A.D.) as *plo:.go-, then plugU. But
> the Germc. intermediary seems unnecessary: we can start from a
> Pannonian-Venetic *plo:go- (see Pellegrini-Prosdoci mi, 1967:258),
> borrowed by the Slavs in Pannonia sometime in the 5th-6th cent.
> A.D.,
>
> ****GK: If the Chernyakhiv Goths had ploughs in the 3rd and 4th
> centuries (and they did), then why should their northern neighbours
> have waited for two centuries to acquire the term directly from
> Pannonian-Venetic? The southernmost Slavic groups of the Kyivan
> culture were intermixed with the northernmost Goths and also had
> ploughs, as archaeological digs attest.****
>

What is the earliest occurrence of the plough that you know of in that
general area?

And you did notice that Markey is toying with the idea of mr.
Harigasti as the inventor of the Germanic runes, which is odd since we
all know who is supposed to have invented them?


Torsten