--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > 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.
What word? _soroc^IkU_?
In any case, it doesn't seem strange to me. Compiling his word index
to the corpus of birch bark inscriptions, he was naturally interested
in the words and the meanings of the words occuring in these
inscriptions only. Why on earth he had to mention the existence or
non-existance of every given Krivichian word (or meaning) in Standard
Old Russian? It isn't a comparative study of the Old Krivichian
lexis, nor an etymological dictionary. Just an index in a field.
Sergei