From: tgpedersen
Message: 56309
Date: 2008-03-30
>Because the fish is long I should be less sarcastic? Was it the
> At 1:51:41 PM on Sunday, March 30, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 11:23:22 AM on Sunday, March 30, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> AHD4 s.v. <ling>: ME, possibly of LG origin, with a
> >>>> reference to a PIE root *del-(1), where a stronger
> >>>> assertion is made: that it's from ME <lenge, ling, ling>,
> >>>> from a LG source akin to Dutch <lenghe, linghe>, 'long
> >>>> one', from PGmc *langitho:.
>
> >>> That well-known fish, the 'length'? Haha, funny man.
>
> >> 'Ling possesses a long slender body that can reach 2
> >> metres in length' (Wikip. s.v. <Common ling>).
>
> >> 'The ling has long, slender body and a distinct beard on
> >> the lower jaw. ... The ling can reach a length of 2.2
> >> meters.' (The Marine Fauna Gallery of Norway,
> >> <http://www.seawater.no/fauna/Fisk/lange.htm>)
>
> >> The pictures show a long, slender, rather eel-like fish
> >> for which 'the long one' seems quite appropriate.
>
> > No one denied that it was a long fish.
>
> No? Then perhaps you should try for more content and less
> sarcasm and derision.
> >>>> Incidentally, ON <langa> was borrowed into OIr asWhy do you behave like there is then?
> >>>> <langa>.
>
> >>> The obvious objection is that there is no reason why the
> >>> Irish should borrow a name for that fish from the
> >>> Scandinavians.
>
> >> They also borrowed ON <þorskr> 'codfish', as <trosc>.
>
> > Oddly enough, so did the Baltic Finns, Est. tursk.
> > Therefore it must be Germanic?
>
> There are very few 'musts' in historical linguistics, but
> that's certainly the most straightforward explanation.
> And in Gmc. it has a perfectly good etymology, from *þurs- (PIEWould that be with a k-suffix?
> *ters- 'to dry').