Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

----- Original Message -----

From: Marc Verhaegen

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 11:50 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

Dear Marc,

 

We have discussed before the possibility of connecting the Gmc. noun *tawa- meaning 'rope, fibres for rope-making' and the verb *tau-j- meaning 'do, make, finish' (at least in Gothic, cf. also Goth. taui [strong n.] 'deed, work'). While this connection may be real (as you managed to convince me despite my initial scepticism), the conclusions you draw from it seem far-fetched.

 

(1) The Gallehus Horn inscription (ekhlewagastiR:holtijaR:horna:tawido) is usually translated 'I, Hlewagastiz of Holt, made this horn'. You translate tawido as 'decorated' -- the primary meaning of the verb in Modern Dutch but not in the older Germanic languages. For 'cord' to equal 'decorate' you'd have to prove that the Dutch meaning is older than the Gothic one. Alternative semantic developments are not difficult to imagine, e.g. 'scutched fibres, tow' --> 'make (a surface) smooth by rubbing it with tow' (attested in older English!) > 'put the finishing touches to (sth)' > 'make'/'adorn'.

 

(2) There may be a link between "cord" and "decorate" in Germanic, but what about the rest of IE? The hypothetical pre-Gmc. **dowo- for 'cord' is not supported by extra-Germanic evidence. Nor can I think of any non-Germanic IE language in which the words for 'cord' and 'embellish' are derived from the same root. Since we are dealing here with an inner Germanic etymology, not with a common IE one, how can it tell us anything about "the PIE lifestyle"?

 

(3) Cord-ornamented pottery occurred in many cultures, e.g. in TRB, Tripolye and Comb Ceramic (the last often attributed to early Baltic Finnic speakers), not to mention the very earliest pottery from Japan and NE Asia. The name "Corded Ware" is a conventional designation that refers to a characteristic and frequently occurring ornamental motif. The cord impression is an important classificatory feature from the point of view of modern archaeologists, but we have no means of knowing what significance the makers and the owners of the pottery attached to it. It was not their only method of decorating clay vessels and the claim that they naturally associated cord with decoration sounds a bit presumptive. Archaeologists like pottery since it preserves well and has readily recognisable styles. However, excessive reliance on pottery types as cultural indexes turns people into pottery fetishists. A characteristic symptom is calling innocent prehistoric Europeans silly names like "Beakers".

 

Piotr

 

 

Marc writes:
In some instances, archeology & linguistics fall well together.
Archeologically the beaker cultures spread west from Ukrain to the Rhine
delta (Corded ware 3000-2800 BC), then north to Brittain & south to the
Rhone delta (Bell beakers 2800-2500 BC), Iberia & Italy. Now, Dutch "touw" &
"tooi" have the same etymology, but a very different meaning: touw=cord,
tooi=ornament, tooien=embellish, voltooien=finish, Gothic taujan=finish,
runic "ek horna tawido" = "I decorated this horn" = Dutch "ik tooide [deze]
hoorn". Probably the verb was derived from the noun, to denote the
cording/decorating/finishing of the beakers, later the connection with a
cord got lost (runic). IOW, the beaker cultures seem to have spoken IE
languages: perhaps Balto-Slavic (Ukrain, N-Eur.plains?), Germanic
(S-Scandinavia) & Italo-Celtic (mid+W-Europe+Italy)? (or some of these, but
including Germanic; the Balto-Slavic RUKI rule could perhaps be explained by
continuing contact with the homeland). IMO it's difficult to find better
explanations for cord=decorate, and it confirms Gimbutas' ideas of the
Ukrainian homeland ca.3000BC. Transitions of meanings like this (eg, Latin
"domus" = English "timber" suggest houses were made of wood) could be
important for reconstructing the PIE lifestyle.