From: Rick McCallister
Message: 61012
Date: 2008-10-19
> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>Doesn't the presence of Icelandic offer a away around your MO. If a word is in Icelandic, unless it's a recent loanword, wouldn't it have to come from Old Norse?
> Subject: [tied] Re: Identity of the 'language of geminates'
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 5:11 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
> >
> > At 3:58:53 PM on Saturday, October 18, 2008,
> tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M.
> Scott"
> > > <BMScott@> wrote:
> >
> > >> At 6:02:05 AM on Saturday, October 18, 2008,
> tgpedersen
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >> [...]
> >
> > >>> The presence of perte "beat" in
> Jysk (where because of
> > >>> p- it must be substrate, it can't be
> Germanic) and
> > >>> kwarthæ "brim, edge" in ODa.
> is suspicious.
> >
> > >> The presence of *kwarthæ in ODan. hasn't
> even been
> > >> established yet.
> >
> > > *-wa- > *-wo- > -o- is dialectal in Danish
> >
> > Irrelevant to the point that I was making. I was not
> > objecting to the details of the derivation; I was
> pointing
> > out that you've provided no reason to think that
> the Scand.
> > words aren't borrowed from MLG. This is still the
> case.
>
> THe usual MO when people try to determine the provenance of
> a word in
> Continental Scandinavian is: if it is documented in ON it
> is
> inherited, but if it isn't but documented in Low German
> then it's a
> loan from Low German. This method is not foolproof, the
> fact that
> something isn't documented in ON does not necessarily
> mean it wasn't
> there. Anyway, even if the word is from Low German, the
> puzzle stands:
> under the standard view, those words shouldn't be
> there. And BTW,
> 'I've provided no reason to think', you
> persevere, don't you?
>
>
> Torsten