Re: Negau

--- On Sat, 9/27/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@... com> 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.****

•  1
  New Members
•  2
  New Files