Re: [tied] Fw: Sorok i devianosto

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

> --- 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

******GK: So he NEVER mentions (by way of comparison)
ANY non-Krivichian words?
In any case, it does seem strange that the dialect of
mediaeval Novgorod knew sorochitsa (and of course
sorok% as "bag of 40 marten skins") but not sorok%%%
as just "bag". According to your theory the "bag" word
should have been prior. Given the very "homey" nature
of many of these birch bark inscriptions its complete
absence is more than eloquent I would say.******

>
>

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