From: tgpedersen
Message: 64448
Date: 2009-07-27
>Vennemann has a Semitic plk "district; spindle",
> --- On Mon, 7/27/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > Vennemann gave a convincing Semitic etymology for 'folk'
> > 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?).
>
> Not AFAIK.
>
> > Now if it came from Semitic to all three, what is the time line
> > of the borrowing?
>
> Time of the Sea Peoples in Egypt. Bronze Age.
>
> ****GK: I don't suppose there is any connection between the Gr
> "pelekus" and the Egyptian designation of the Philistines
> ("Peleset")(with the latter being some sort of satemized variant:
> is the Hebrew link "Plishtim" totally secure or just a folk
> version?). The time frame would be adequate enough, and the
> archaeological evidence plausible (since migrating people of the
> Zrubna right bank steppe area culture of Ukraine participated in
> the "peoples of the sea" invasion along with more Western
> elements). But if so why would it be the "k" form which appeared in
> Balto-Slavic (unless there was a later secondary borrowing).
> Probably an incorrect hookup but very tempting esp. in view of
> later Scythian connections with Ashkelon and their "viper woman" +
> Targitaus myths which all have clear links to the middle east.*****
>
> > On the other hand if the Slavic and Baltic terms are borrowings
> > from Germanic, this would imply a time before the Grimm shift.
>
> Actually, most traditional treatments of traditional loans from
> Germanic to Baltic Finnic presupposes a reversing of Grimm in the
> process, probably because Grimm was once placed very early. Most
> linguists now place the Grimm shift around the begin of CE, so do
> I, seeing it as caused by contact with an Iranian language (Ossetic
> has something similar). But since I'm beginning an Umwertung aller
> Werte anyway, I'll get this straight too: it was loaned from
> Semitic into the ar-/ur- language.
>
> *****GK: As "plg" (as Piotr implies?) with the "g" later changing
> to a "k"?****