Re: Germanic 30% foreign

From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 8472
Date: 2001-08-13

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
> Chris Gwinn:
> >Yes - and quite a few scholars think that number is completely
> >exaggerated, and that many of so called substratum words have
> >perfectly good PIE origins that simply were not recognized as such
> >the linguists that favor such a large percentage of non-IE words. I
> >would tend to agree that the number is way too large.
> I don't believe that Germanic was completely pure either but I
> agree with Chris. The word for "drink" for instance looks like
> a normal n-infixed verb that you'd find elsewhere in IE.
> Unfortunately, last time I checked, McCallister's list of suspected
> foreign roots in Germanic was obliterated. Oh well, it was a messy
> list anyway but still, it's a worthwhile activity. It would
> be more informative if the list consisted of Proto-Germanic roots
> *only*, instead of the hodgepodge way this list had been presented.
How about Bomhard; IE and the Noostratic hypothesis, root 115:

*t[h](a|&)r- "to drink" Proto-Nostratic
*t[h]r- "to drink" Proto-Kartvelian
*ta:rk- "to drink, swallow" Proto-Dravidian