Re: [tied] Fw: Sorok i devianosto

--- Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> > GK: I think the problem here is that there is
> no
> > attestation of an original meaning "sack" (just
> plain
> > "sack") for -sorokU-/-soroc^IkU- in linguistic
> > material prior to the 19th century. Which suggests
> > that the borrowing from Germanic was the term as
> > meaning "shirt" only. That being the case there is
> no
> > difficulty in seeing the Dahl material as
> reflecting much
> > later developments where the fact that "sorok"
> martin skins
> > were handled in a bag resulted in the shift of
> meaning. The
> > localities about which I asked would indicate
> where this
> > shift of meaning
> > occurred.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to write this: there are no
> geographical information in
> both entries. That would mean that Dahl considered
> the word pan-Russian
> or at least belonging to Standard Russian.
>
> > GK: I don't deny the link but I don't think
> you
> > have proved its existence at the time when the
> term
> > "sorok" (40), which is after all what the
> discussion
> > is all about, existed. -sorok%%%- as "bag" didn't
> yet
> > make it into the Muscovite Law Code of 1649.
>
> Of course I haven't proved that. I already mentioned
> the main reason: I
> don't have (all the) relevant lexicographical
> sources to hand (eg., a
> decent Old Russian dictionary).

*****GK: I'm sure Zaliznyak did (does). It seems
strange that he would not have mentioned the existence
of this word in any Old "Russian" text. But by all
means, keep looking. It isn't in my 2-volume "Slovnyk
Staroukrajins'koji Movy" either (which covers the
period of the 14-15th c. in 1220 pages of entries).In
the meantime I'll stick with the Greek
hypothesis.*****

>
> > > Actually, one could reject any example on such
> > > grounds (i.e., positing
> > > the semantic development 'money-commodity unit'
> ->
> > > 'sack').
> >
> > GK: We're not talking about "ANY" example
> though,
> > are we, but about something pretty important,
> which
> > triggered an abandonment of the traditional term
> for
> > "40" among the East Slavs.
>
> I meant "any example from a present-day Slavic
> language", becase you
> wrote:
>
> "That would be important. I don't have enough
> resources at hand to check if it has survived in
> this
> sense to our days in any Slavic language."
>
> So I've checked and readily reported: yes, it has
> survived in that sense
> at least in one Slavic language.

*****GK: I think what you reported is that you found
this in Dahl with respect to 19th c. Russian (I'm not
as certain as you with respect to its pan-Russianism.
Has the 19th c. word been maintained through the 20th
c. as pan-Russian?). But presence and use in some 19th
c. Russian dialects is not per se proof of "survival".
You need a mediaeval link. You haven't found one yet.
Right now, it is arguable that the 19th c. word is
based on or developed from the earlier term meaning
"bag of 40 marten skins" (where the "sorok" refers to
the "40" not to the bag) with a change of emphasis
from "40" to "bag" or "cover".*******

>
> > > Of course Nazarenko is more competent as to
> those
> > > -ko-.
> >
> > GK: Actually you've avoided my question, and
> the
> > irony is misplaced.
>
> Sorry, it was a silly pun. Yes Vasmer considers this
> problematic, but
> not impossible.
>
> > But here is something which should
> > alleviate your concern. We don't actually have to
> posit that
> > "sorok" emerged as a result of the direct contacts
> between
> > Constantinople and Kyiv. The "Varangian Route"
> existed long
> > before the arrival of the "Varangians" after which
> it was
> > later named. We have Arab documents (and
> archaeological
> > confirmation) of strong trade relations between
> Crimean
> > Chersones and the north (serviced along the Dnipro
> and its
> > links). And certainly thriving at the time of the
> Khazar
> > suzerainty over Far Eastern Europe: ca.660-860.
> Slavic
> > merchants were active here before the Norse. That
> should deal
> > with the Vasmer point even if we assume that it
> extended to
> > any and every Greek lingo of the 9th c.
>
> How would that deal with my point: Middle Greek
> _sarakonta_ would have
> yielded (pre-)East Slavic +soroko,to or +soroko,tU,
> which must have
> reflected as +sorokuto or +sorokutU in Standard Old
> Russian, while only
> _sorokU_ and _soroc^IkU_ are actually attested.
>
> From unattested Middle Greek slang word *_sarakos_
> 'a forty units of
> something'? Poor hearing? Too a long (and
> inconvenient) word?

******GK: From what I remember of the Nazarenko
article this seemed the explanation, viz., "sorok" as
an abbreviation of something longer and
inconvenient.****

> Re-analysis, extracting and throwing away the suffix
> -o,t- (1.
> unproductive suffix found in some fossilized
> *-j-less participles 2.
> diminutive suffix forming the name of a young
> animal)?
>
> Sergei
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com