Odp: [tied] Re: Romanian and Slavic

--- In cybalist@..., "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> --- 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

Actually I wasn't stating, I was asking. But if you think it
is "probably wrong" that's good enough for me. I suppose "relative
homophony" is Greek for "they look the same but they aren't"?

Torsten