From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 56312
Date: 2008-03-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"[...]
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> That well-known fish, the 'length'? Haha, funny man.[...]
>>>> 'The ling has long, slender body and a distinct beardNothing 'got to' me. Not even the thunderstone, though it's
>>>> 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.
> Because the fish is long I should be less sarcastic? Was
> it the length-fish that got to you?
>>>>>> Incidentally, ON <langa> was borrowed into OIr asI don't, of course.
>>>>>> <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.
> Why do you behave like there is then?
>> And in Gmc. [ON <þorskr> 'codfish'] has a perfectly goodYes. Krahe & Meid III, §194.1 note that deadjectival
>> etymology, from *þurs- (PIE *ters- 'to dry').
> Would that be with a k-suffix?