From: tgpedersen
Message: 56843
Date: 2008-04-06
>I don't get it. It's *þurs-k-az because an earlobe is an animal? I
> At 6:33:50 AM on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>> And in Gmc. [ON <þorskr> 'codfish'] has a perfectly
> >>>> good etymology, from *þurs- (PIE *ters- 'to dry').
>
> >>> Would that be with a k-suffix?
>
> >> Yes. Krahe & Meid III, §194.1 note that deadjectival
> >> derivation of verbs via a Gmc. k-suffix is especially
> >> frequent in ON, offering the pairs <dýrka> ~ <dýrr>,
> >> <blíðka> ~ <blíðr>, <minnka> ~ <minnr>, <seinka> ~ <seinn>,
> >> <víðka> ~ <víð>, <þurka> ~ <þurr>, and <samka> ~ <samr>.
>
> > But those are verbs, Brian.
>
> Yes, I got sidetracked into thinking about the relationship
> between <þurr> and <þurka> and forgot the original issue.
> What I wrote is actually relevant, however, as it explains
> the lack of /s/ in the verb: it's derived from the
> adjective. <Þurr> itself should be from something like
> *þurzu-; the <rr> is part of the root, even though the
> second <r> is dropped before consonantal inflectional
> endings.
>
> <Þorskr> would appear to be regularly derived from *þurskaz.
> The k-suffix in animal names is usually found in weak
> masculines (as <-ki>), but there is <eyrnablaðkr> 'earlobe'
> (<blað> 'a leaf').