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