Re: [tied] Vanir

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 11265
Date: 2001-11-19

Message
-----Original Message-----
From: george knysh [mailto:gknysh@...]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:28 PM
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [tied] Vanir

*****GK: Sorry Sergejus, but as originally propounded
by you this hypothesis did not sound "toponymical" but
"adjectival". Here is the passage as a reminder to
you:
***GK: That being so my question about Baltic
borrowings in Gothic seemed perfectly in order.I.e. if
Goths borrowed the adjective "auksinis" what else did
they borrow. Anyway, "golden" or not, it's time to
stop chasing rainbows here don't you think?****
 
[Sergejus Tarasovas] 
Let's have no clever-cleverness and deep innuendoes. Please leave that for your students, if you like. By the way, I didn't comment such insanity as PIE *kos'-kos' etc or funny tries to supersede some English proper names with the Ukrainian ones in such a tone (though it was worth it). If you noted, I didn't insist on my guess. You were asking, I was answering.
 
> > (ST)But
Slavic *ple,sati is itself problematic as
> to
> its
> >
etymology, and
> > Slavic > Gothic plinsjan can't be
considered
> proven.
>
> *****GK: I can
> only go by
what seems to be the established current
> consensus.*****
>
[Sergejus Tarasovas]
> What makes you think so?

*****GK: If the latter, I can say
that yours is the first critical opinion I've
encountered. Perhaps you might develop it for our
edification.****
[Sergejus Tarasovas] 
I would expect you to provide me with a reference to a source declaring such a consensus (not to Mr. Petrov, please). Alternatively you'd had to offer a plausible etymology for Slavic *ple,sati, because if a lexeme is not etymologized in a conjecturable donor language, that language's status as a donor inevitably gets problematic.
 
Sergei