From: tgpedersen
Message: 64446
Date: 2009-07-27
> >>Vennemann gave a convincing Semitic etymology for 'folk'The Semitic-loan theory assumes just that, a biliteral extended root.
> >http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/48772
> >http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/48897
> >
> >>****GK: There are attested presences of this term in three
> >>language groups: Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic (nothing in
> >>Iranic?). Now if it came from Semitic to all three, what is the
> >>time line of the borrowing?
> >
> >>On the other hand if the Slavic and Baltic terms are borrowings
> >>from Germanic, this would imply a time before the Grimm shift. Is
> >>that why you are partial to Semitic (:=))?****
> >And there's Latin populus, provided it's from reduplicated *pul-
> >and that *folkaz is actually *fol-k-az
> >And, before Douglas can get a word in, there's Etruscan Fuflans
>It matches the Semitic-loan theory only if somehow we can construe "city" as a division of something larger, ie. if the word is used for city within a larger ethnic / organisational context.
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
>
> Any relation to Greek polis=Lithuanian pilis = Sansk. pur, pura,
> "fortress, city" ?
> *folkam < *folkkam < *folknam *pL.-g^n(h)om = "people of theMnjao.
> fortress"?
> or a dissimilated *folklam
>