Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

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

From: Marc Verhaegen

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:17 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

Dear Marc,

I'd prefer to discuss the archaeological evidence for east-to-west movements separately, as the subject is vast and complicated. Here let me just clarify a few points already discussed.

(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.

Is that so? All I know is that Goth."tawjan" has been translated by "to make/finish". "To decorate" is the only meaning of "tooien". And Hlewagastiz did not "make" the horn, but he decorated (tooide) & finished it (voltooide).

He most likely did make it. The Gallehus Horn was not a natural one; it was made of gold.

For 'cord' to equal 'decorate' you'd have to prove that the Dutch meaning is older than the Gothic one.

Not illogical IMO, since "to make" is vaguer than "to decorate", and "to make" is not be the only Gothic meaning?

Both Gothic taujan and OHG zouwen mean 'do, make'. The meaning 'decorate' is not attested outside of Dutch, AFAIK, and *'to decorate using cord' is only a speculative reconstruction, as it isn't attested neither in Dutch nor anywhere else.

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'.

Good objection, but isn't a verb with "-i-" more likely older than one without? The Dutch verb is "tooien". I could image a verb "touwen" (present derivation), but it would not have the meanings of decorating (tooien) & finishing (voltooien). Verb derivation from nouns with "-i-" is PIE, isn't it? also Germanic (weak verbs)? still later?

Actually a verb "without -i-" would have been a Class II denominal weak verb (*taw-o:j-, hypothetical Gothic *tawôn) as opposed to a Class I weak verb (*tau-j- > Gothic taujan). You are right: Class II verbs are more productive and (other things being equal) less archaic than Class I, though even most Class I verbs cannot be reconstructed beyond Proto-Germanic. However, I don't claim that obsolete English tow (v.) 'polish the surface of (a pot etc.)', is etymologically equivalent to taujan (it can't be, as the English development of *tau-j-an- would have been different). I simply point out that there existed a technical term used by potters that was derived from tow (n.) and meant something different from 'decorate' -- a precedent for the semantic derivation I suggested. As for the possible meaning of *tau-j-, Class I verbs are generally deverbal (causatives) or deadjectival rather than denominal, but I wouldn't exclude an intepretation like 'to do things with *tawa-' (Old English timbran < *timr-j- 'build' <-- timber or cemban < *kamb-j- 'comb' <-- camb).

(2) ... 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"?

Yes, of course, it's only the combination of linguistic & archeol.data that could tell us something about this particular subject, but I was talking about transitions of meanings "like" this, eg, domus=timber.

But if an IE derivation doesn't exist, how can it be used to support Gimbutas's ideas? In general, one should be wary of etymologies that are offered to prove a point. I still fail to see what relevance the proposed transition of meaning could have outside Germanic (and even inside Germanic the connection is a little problematic).

Piotr