From: george knysh
> > GK: "up to this day": that is to say up to*****GK: I don't have the article at hand. But I've
> > 2nd half of the 19th century.
> > Which is a thousand
> > years after the initiation of trade relations
> > Rus' and Byzantium (the earliest treaty is of 866.
> > is not extant but we have probable segments from
> > repeated in those which are). So the first thing
> > have to deal with is the evolution of a word over
> > length of time. The reason (originally) for using
> > "40 kunitsja skins" as a unit is that this was the
> > exact equivalent (both in value and in weight acc.
> > Nazarenko) of 1 Byzantine LITRA.
> I've understood the reasoning already, but what's
> his _evidence_, BTW?
> It sounds plausible that this litra-equation could*****GK: I think the problem here is that there is no
> _sorokU_/_soroc^IkU_ acquire a new specific meaning
> (i. e., trigger a
> semantic shift 'sack; pack' --> 'a pack of 40 skins
> as a commodity
> (later money) unit'), but it's not easy to prove the
> word itself was
> borrowed from Greek and later contaminated with
> homonymic!) native reflexes of *sork-.
>*****GK: I don't deny the link but I don't think you
> > Was that enough to
> > make a coat in the 9th c.? I'm not sure.
> > But we can't
> > rule out that (1) the Dahl bag was a different
> > category from that of the Byzantine bound
> > and (2) that the explanation also indicates a
> > different trade situation. The Dahl "sorochka"
> > like a latter day utilization of an earlier term,
> > what meant "the equivalent in marten skins (40) of
> > litra" was later applied to the bag itself for a
> > different kind of transaction.
> Of course it can't be ruled out (but note _soroc^ka_
> '1. shirt 2. sack,
> cover' is a different word, not just a "utilization"
> of _sorok(U)_ '1.
> 40 2. pack of 40 skins'). But you asked for the
> examples of a reflex of
> *sork- meaning 'sack', and I provided such an
> example scrupulously ;-).
> Actually, one could reject any example on such*****GK: We're not talking about "ANY" example though,
> grounds (i.e., positing
> the semantic development 'money-commodity unit' ->
>*****GK: Actually you've avoided my question, and the
> > > Vasmer (being one of the most eminent
> specialists in
> > > (East) Slavic
> > > Grecisms) thinks that "...the explanation from
> > > Middle Greek
> > > _sarikonta_ '40' is problematic in view of early
> > > (9th c.) deletion
> > > of -ko- (cf. Modern Greek _sarinta_ '40')."
> > GK: But he doesn't say impossible. Does he
> > evidence of a universal deletion of -ko- in "trade
> > talk" by 866?
> Of course Nazarenko is more competent as to those