From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...>[...]
>> --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>>> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>>>> At 8:53:37 PM on Tuesday, November 11, 2008, tgpedersen
>>>>>> The interpretation "(barge-)pulling (river)" also
>>>>>> explains Slav. *drug- "friend" (< *droug- < *dron,W-,
>>>>>> like plug < *ploug- < *plon,W) and ON drengr "servant" as
>>>>>> "pullers" in a team (*druxt-).
>>>> <Drengr> 'servant'? Amazing what one can do with bad
>>> Out of laziness I didn't check de Vries and DEO; here's what
>>> they say.
>>> de Vries:
>>> 'drengr 1 m.
>>> 'dicker stock; mann, knabe, diener
>>> Für idg. Verw. s. drangr.Why you're being so thick. Obviously I was referring to the
>> Which means 'a detached pillar of rock'.
> Yes, I listed that later.
>>> 2 m. 'tau zum festbinden'. ? >
>>> 'dreng en;
>>> glda., no. d.s., sv. dräng 'tjenestekarl',
>>> oldnord. drengr m. 'menneske; karl; ung mand; tyk stok';
>> Note: no servants here.
> Da. dreng "boy", ODa., Nw. id.
> Diener "servant", tjenestekarl "farm hand, servant".
> What is it you don't understand?
>>> Seems I didn't misremember too much.Not necessarily, no.
>> Seems that you don't understand what you read. 'Servant'
>> is clearly a derived meaning, from earlier 'young man',
>> as is the usual ON sense, 'bold man, valiant man, worthy
>> man' (which is found also in the OE borrowing <dreng>).
> But still a subordinate.
>> DEO further takes young man' to be a derived sense, fromThe difference is that you, unlike them, have neither any
>> 'thick pole'; Cleasby thought that the original form was
>> <drangr> 'a detached pillar of rock', with a similar
>> sense development.
> And I think it meant "someone or someone that helps move a
>> But whether or not they're right about the earliestYes. Because it *is* clear.
>> stage, it's clear that the word was not originally
>> 'servant' or 'puller'.
> Now you are clearlying again.
> I proposed that that is what the word meant, knowing fullIf you really did know what they said and were not simply
> well that the dictionaries said otherwise.
> This is an example of my principle that if one has an ideaAh, yes; the wet dream of every crackpot.
> that is not in the books one should propose it, but if one
> doesn't one should keep one's mouth shut.