Re: [tied] Re: An Alteuropäisch appellative as loanword?

At 7:16:56 PM on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...>
> wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> At 8:53:37 PM on Tuesday, November 11, 2008, tgpedersen
>>>> wrote:

>>>> [...]

>>>>>> The interpretation "(barge-)pulling (river)" also
>>>>>> explains Slav. *drug- "friend" (< *droug- < *dron,W-,
>>>>>> like plug < *ploug- < *plon,W) and ON drengr "servant" as
>>>>>> "pullers" in a team (*druxt-).

>>>> <Drengr> 'servant'? Amazing what one can do with bad
>>>> glosses.

>>> Out of laziness I didn't check de Vries and DEO; here's what
>>> they say.
>>> de Vries:
>>> 'drengr 1 m.
>>> 'dicker stock; mann, knabe, diener

[...]

>>> Für idg. Verw. s. drangr.

>> Which means 'a detached pillar of rock'.

> Yes, I listed that later.

>>> 2 m. 'tau zum festbinden'. ? >

>> [...]

>>> DEO:
>>> 'dreng en;
>>> glda., no. d.s., sv. dräng 'tjenestekarl',
>>> oldnord. drengr m. 'menneske; karl; ung mand; tyk stok';

>> Note: no servants here.

> Da. dreng "boy", ODa., Nw. id.
> Diener "servant", tjenestekarl "farm hand, servant".
> What is it you don't understand?

Why you're being so thick. Obviously I was referring to the
ON senses, which are earlier.

[...]

>>> Seems I didn't misremember too much.

>> Seems that you don't understand what you read. 'Servant'
>> is clearly a derived meaning, from earlier 'young man',
>> as is the usual ON sense, 'bold man, valiant man, worthy
>> man' (which is found also in the OE borrowing <dreng>).

> But still a subordinate.

Not necessarily, no.

>> DEO further takes young man' to be a derived sense, from
>> 'thick pole'; Cleasby thought that the original form was
>> <drangr> 'a detached pillar of rock', with a similar
>> sense development.

> And I think it meant "someone or someone that helps move a
> boat"

The difference is that you, unlike them, have neither any
real evidence nor any real claim to be worth taking
seriously.

>> But whether or not they're right about the earliest
>> stage, it's clear that the word was not originally
>> 'servant' or 'puller'.

> Now you are clearlying again.

Yes. Because it *is* clear.

> I proposed that that is what the word meant, knowing full
> well that the dictionaries said otherwise.

If you really did know what they said and were not simply
working from an inadequate memory, then you didn't
understand how to use the information.

> This is an example of my principle that if one has an idea
> that is not in the books one should propose it, but if one
> doesn't one should keep one's mouth shut.

Ah, yes; the wet dream of every crackpot.

Brian