--- In cybalist@..., "girts zadins" <girts1@...> wrote:
> If I remember right Poltsk was a Latvian City
If this is about my comment on Saxo's text, please make your statement more precise:
1. What Poltsk do YOU mean? Is that the same Polack (< Old Russian PolotIskU) in Byelorussia or something else?
2. Latvian in what sense? You better than me know the time by which today's Latvians have set. What East Baltic tribe do you mean exactly: Latgals? Again, all historical sources mention it as a Slavic, more precisely, Krivichian city. If your point is it existed before the Slavs settled there (the territory was no doubt Baltic, not unlikely East Baltic)? Why not. Ask archelogists, I dunno. Your point is it's name is East Baltic? It's hard to say. But look at it's etymology. Polack < Old Russian < Polot-Isk-U 'of (river) Polota' < * Early Proto-Slavic *Pa-lat-a: '(a river) on (the) Lat(galian) (border)'. Interestingly enough, *Pa-lata: could well be interpreted as Baltic (all the morphems have the same meaning!). But. Did it make sense for Latgals to call their river and city 'on the border to ourselves'? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suppose it was their neighbours (Slavs or, earlier, South Balts = Yotvingians) who named the river and the city?
, and laiva" is the latvian
> word fro a small row boat.
>
Lith. lai~vas 'ship' and Latv. laiva 'boatl' are usually etymologized as loans from the Baltic Finnish. If you have another (Baltic, I suppose) etymology, please share it with the list members.
Baltically yours,
Sergei