Odp: [tied] Re: Romanian and Slavic

--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:

> > It's out of my competence to comment an English etymological
> > dictionary. (A self correction before Piotr attacks me: OHG

baltz,

> > not belt). Germanic or not, it's not relevant to the point I
> > addressed in my answer: Germanic, Baltic and Slavic roots can
> > peacefully coexist not being borrowed or even not having a common
> > ancestor.
> >
> > Sergei
>
> I appreciate the pacifist intentions of the statement that German,
> Baltic and Slavic roots don't have to attack each other even if,

etc,

> but I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
>

If I got you right, you stated that:
1. there exists a sort of relation between Germanic (*bVlt-, a
Germanist should fill this V), Baltic (*ba'lt-) and Slavic (*bo'lt- <
*ba'lt-) roots.
2. this relation is probably
2.1 a borrowing (of course, Germanic -> Slavic and or Baltic, ad
maiorem Germanorum gloriam :) ) or
2.2 a derivation from a common ProtoIE root (but PG *t is a bad
cognate for Balto-Slavic *t).

My point was that the statement is propably wrong and the only
relation is a relative homophony (with a reservation for the Baltic
and the Slavic roots may be).

Sergei