>I agree that it is not native to English, and you do have a good point about the distribution of the compulsory compound. I tried hard to etymologize ME <pacche> 'patch' as derived through OE from WGmc *pakko:n-, but it required too many special assumptions. The result was less plausible than Weekley's simple suggestion that 'patch' is identical with 'piece', but borrowed into ME from a different Gallo-Romance dialect at a different time.
> --- In email@example.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Given the connection with wool and the Low German provenance,
> > > > it is plausible to regard 'pack' as borrowed from a
> > > > Nordwestblock word for 'fleece, wool', related to Greek <pókos>
> > > > 'uncombed wool, fleece; tuft of wool; sheep-shearing', from the
> > > > Indo-European root *pek^- (IEW 797). This same noun, IE
> > > > *pók^os, became Gmc. *fahaz and is reflected as ON <fæ´r>
> > > > 'sheep'. One might expect NWB *pakas. However, since the /a/
> > > > of the West Gmc. forms has not undergone /j/-umlaut, the /kk/
> > > > cannot be derived from /j/-gemination. That is, we cannot
> > > > postulate an early WGmc *pakaz leading to a Class I weak verb
> > > > *pakjan, later *pakkjan, for it would have become *pekkjan in
> > > > Old Saxon and Old Dutch, whence MLG/MD *pekken not <pakken>.
> > > > Similarly, the nouns could not have arisen from early WGmc
> > > > *pakja- and *pakjan-. If the source was NWB, the gemination
> > > > very likely occurred in NWB, and a form already having *pakk-
> > > > was then borrowed into WGmc. Without pretending any certainty
> > > > about NWB morphology, I will guess that *pakas 'fleece, wool'
> > > > had the associated adjective *pakyas 'pertaining to wool',
> > > > which regularly became *pakkas, and was borrowed into early
> > > > WGmc as *pakkaz. This adjective was then substantivized as
> > > > 'bundle or load of wool', with a masculine or neuter noun
> > > > subsumed, and this in turn produced a Class II weak verb
> > > > *pakko:n, later (in Ingvaeonic) *pakko:jan, and a wk. m. noun
> > > > *pakkan- 'woolly mass' vel sim.
> > >
> > > I know that the association Low Countries ~ wool trade comes easy
> > > to mind to Anglophones, but a slight semantic correction:
> > >
> > > 'pakken' is the standard Dutch, as 'packen' is the colloquial
> > > German (from Low German, note, no pf-) word for the general
> > > concept of "grasp, take" (Engl. 'pack' is Dutch 'inpakken', note
> > > the Lat. impaccare, not *paccare in the 1280 contract), not for
> > > some specialization of it as the word is used in English and the
> > > Scandinavian languages.
> > > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/pak
> > > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/aanpakken
> > > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/inpakken
> > > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/slag
> > Yes, but the OED does cite "pro lana pakkanda" from 1341. The old
> > simplex was simply less common than compound verbs. The current
> > sense of <pakken> can be related to one of the senses of English
> > <pack>, 'to stow or transport goods and the like as a business'.
> > Those in the packing trade not only packed stuff, they grasped and
> > took stuff to someplace else.
> What I think is notable here is that the sense "to pack" for the pakk- verb simply doesn't exist in the languages of the area from where the verb most likely came. I've experienced that a Dutch woman corrected my 'pakken' to 'inpakken'. What happened, I think, is that 'pack in' vel sim. was borrowed in the English and Scandinavian languages which were at the passive ende of the Dutch / Low German trade
> and that, since there was no native verb pakk- in those languages, the uncompounded *pakk-, without 'in', got to be used there in the sense with which 'inpakken' was used in Dutch / Low German. In other words, I don't think pakk- is native to English.
> > > In Dutch, further, a 'pak' is a suit, ie an ensemble, as isAs a bloody Anglophone, I failed to recognize immediately that the construction can be understood like "ein Glas Wasser", and requires no such elaborate shenanigans as I proposed for extraction of a NP from a VP.
> > > German 'Tracht' (< tragen "carry"), and further, in Dutch you can
> > > get 'een pak slag' "a beating" (cf German 'eine Tracht Prügel',
> > > where otherwise Prügel = "stick, club, baton")
> > > http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Pr%C3%BCgel
> > > (< MHG brügel "piece of wood" says DEO)
> > > so I suspect we are dealing with our old friend *bak- "stick (of
> > > wood)" here, that the original sense of the noun was "bundle" as
> > > in Dutch, and that the specialized sense as in English 'pack'
> > > spread with Hansa and Dutch trade.
> > Suits are more commonly woolen than wooden, so this sense would
> > seem to support derivation from 'bundle of wool' rather than
> > 'bundle of sticks'.
> > As for <een pak slag>, I think the force of <pak> is not 'with a
> > stick' but 'thorough'. We have <een pak van het hart> 'a load off
> > one's mind' and <een pak voor de broek> 'a good spanking' (i.e. 'a
> > load for the trousers, cf. <voor de broek geven> 'to spank'). That
> > is, the sense 'load' of <pak> becomes 'large amount' or 'thorough
> > application' of whatever.
> I agree that in 'pak slag', 'pak' is an indication of quantity, as is 'Tracht' in 'Tracht Prügel'
> Note the sense "Traglast"
> I would tend to think that the sense is "a bundle of blows"
> > We can imagine *<een pak slaan> 'to beat a load', i.e. 'to give a
> > thorough beating',
> I don't think that has been attested.
> > and the derived nominal phrase <een pak slag> 'a (thorough)Well, yes, packing wool is hardly the subject of epic poetry. What I need to do, to support my own etymological theory of derivation from *pok^os (with the gemination occurring in NWB, this having important implications for NWB phonology, as well as the difficult question whether the WGmc gemination itself is due to NWB substrate influence) is to justify the discrepancy between <pakken> and <inpakken> which you have pointed out.
> > beating' (cf. <zijn slag slaan> 'to make one's coup, see one's
> > chance' with <slag> cognate accusative to <slaan>).
> > > > When mercantilism reached the Low Countries, all three nouns
> > > > *pakkaz, -am, -an were used more or less interchangeably in the
> > > > wool trade. Of course, other scenarios are possible. I am
> > > > merely trying to establish such an etymology as plausible.
> > >
> > > Mercantilism
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
> > > with its emphasis on protection of the domestic market was an
> > > attempt by other nations, in particular France, to protect
> > > themselves against the promiscuous trading of the Dutch. I don't
> > > think there was a time before which the Dutch didn't trade.
> > I misused the term 'mercantilism', and I stand corrected.
> The linguistic relevance of my remark is that pakken "grasp, grab, take" and inpakken "pack" then would be words which came from below, not from the top.