From: tgpedersen
Message: 60451
Date: 2008-09-28
>What is the earliest occurrence of the plough that you know of in that
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/27/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> (Golomb:) Now the problem is whether we need the Germc.
> intermediary in the borrowing of this Danubian or Pannonian word
> *plo:go- by Slavic. The crucial point is the treatment of /o:/:
> Proto-Germanic in its later period had /o:/ (close!), so a Danubian-
> Illyrian (or Venetic) *plo:ga- was borrowed after the first
> consonant shift as PGermc. *plo:ga-, , whence ultimately NHG Pflug,
> NE plough, etc. Of course, this PGermc. form would regularly be
> rendered by the Slavs at the time of the monophthongization of
> diphthongs (4th-6th centuries A.D.) as *plo:.go-, then plugU. But
> the Germc. intermediary seems unnecessary: we can start from a
> Pannonian-Venetic *plo:go- (see Pellegrini-Prosdoci mi, 1967:258),
> borrowed by the Slavs in Pannonia sometime in the 5th-6th cent.
> A.D.,
>
> ****GK: If the Chernyakhiv Goths had ploughs in the 3rd and 4th
> centuries (and they did), then why should their northern neighbours
> have waited for two centuries to acquire the term directly from
> Pannonian-Venetic? The southernmost Slavic groups of the Kyivan
> culture were intermixed with the northernmost Goths and also had
> ploughs, as archaeological digs attest.****
>