Re: [tied] frog

No, it's exactley written - bro:scus "zurück". Taken in account that
turtles could go forward as backward it may explanes the
semantization. Thinking much deeper, if we treat these words as
compounds ones, we could conclude that thee are derived from PIE
root *per- > *ber-, reduced to 0-grade, as proposition and PIE *ed-
/*es- "to eat", treating these as suffixed forms -ka:.
To Albanian word bretk "forg", -k could be easy the suffix, until -
osa to bretkosa (female frog) is motion suffix: derr (male pig),
dosa (female pig).
Otherwise, as You propose the Grundform bru:scus, based in Walde-
Pokorny, I express my reservation that Albanian words could be
derived from this primary form. For bru:scus in Albanian will derive
brishk(a) and bretk will have no fonological explication.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
> 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?