Re: [tied] frog

a_konushevci@... wrote:

>>> *** In Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Albanischen Sprache by
> Gustav Meyer, p. 47, I find out latin word bro:scus "zurück" that
> could derived Alb. breshka, rom. brosc, germ. frosc, Greek
> bathrakos. I haven't any big dictionary to verify it, but I believe
> that is correct
> It's quite interesting that sllavic languages use differnts words
> kornjac^a "turtle" and zhaba "frog". It illustrates the fact that
> sllavic tribes have nothing to do with the sea fauna
> I doubt that this world could be a trace of Pre-Indoeuropean
> Language, probabley Illyrian

1)I could not find a "broscus" but a "bru:scus".If this is the word
discussed by Gustav Meyer, we have in Walde some other explanations. The
Middle Age latin borrowed the word from germanic word "frosch".
"Erst mitelalterliches "bruscus" = "ranae genus" (Papias s. CGIL VII s.
"rubeta") stammt aus germ. "Frosch" ( vergl. Romanian "broascã" ds.)
falls nicht mit "ruscus" ="Kröte" (Pol. Silv.) zusammenzuhalten (s.
Niedermann IA 26,23, Meyer-Lübke AStnSp. 124,381, Walde-Pok. I 699 gegen
Ernout El. dial. lat. 128)".

2)What should have the sea fauna to do here with ? The frogs are in
every lake and almost everywhere where there is moisture. And that
should be not directly corelated with sea fauna or should it?