--- In
cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
> --- In
cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ > wrote:
> >
> > --- In
cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- 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?).
It's sometimes been connected with the Pelasgoi (then assumed from
*pelastoi, with -g- from pelagos "sea")
> > > 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"?****
> >
> > Vennemann has a Semitic plk "district; spindle",
> >
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/60453> > that would match better.
>
> That was too hasty.
> *pVlg- would become Germanic *fVlk-
> *pVlk- would be a nice source for Russian polk, Baltic pulkas.
>
>
From the Vennemann quote, translated:
'Moscati et al. (1964) are of the opinion, that the root plh. 'to
furrow' belong to a group of triliteral roots on the basis pr, the
basic meaning of which is 'to divide':
In the examination of
biconsonantal roots it is to be borne in mind
that the radicals may have undergone certain phonetic changes: thus
alongside the series pr 'to divide' (§ 11.5) Hebrew also possesses the
groups pl and br, i.e. by interchange between consonants with the
same (or a similar) point of articulation (
plh. 'to furrow',
brr 'to separate',
s^br 'to break', etc.). (Moscati at al. 1964: 74)
This is developed further in the quoted paragraph as follows:
§ 11.5. In the historically attested Semitic languages triconsonantal
roots form the great majority; roots with two or four radicals are
much less numerous, while those with one or with five are rare. ...
There are many groups of roots having two radicals in common which
express identical or similar meanings. Thus for example in Hebrew:
prd 'to separate',
prm 'to tear',
prs 'to split',
prs. 'to break down',
prq 'to pull apart',
prr 'to
dissolve',
prs^ 'to distinguish' etc.
All these verbs have in common the radicals pr and the basic notion
'to divide'. This phenomenon, which is widespread in the Semitic
lexicon, raises the question whether many triconsonantal roots are
not, in fact, derived from biconsonantal ones; and whether a system of
biconsonantal roots may, perhaps, have preceded the triconsonantal
theme in Semitic. (Moscati et al. 1964: 72-73).
The change from pr to pl with preserved or added transferred sense
'to divide' would here not be limited to this one triliteral root
form plh. 'to furrow'. In Gesenius (1915: s.w.) we find the
following further derivations, in the paradigms of which we find
forms with the sense here indicated:
pl` "clearly speak out (a pledge)",
probably belongs to the root senses
Jewish Aramaic "cleave"
Ethiopian "separate"
plg (in various Semitic languages)
"cleave, divide; brook, dug-out
canal";
Assyr. palgu "canal", puluggu, pulungu "region"15
plgh "division; region (as part of a tribe); brook"
plh "separate"
plh "cleave", Modern Hebrew, Aram. "dig, cultvate field",
also in Arabic, as Aramaic loanword; "furrow, dig up" 16
plk "division, region; spindel"
pll "judge, decide", perhaps originally "cleave, separate, decide"
It seems besides doubtful whether such a transfer from pr to pl has
actually taken place. This, because in Orel/Stolbova (1995) we find a
root
no. 1938 *pal- "cut, divide",
which the authors identify for the Semitic and for six Hamitic
subfamilies ... . Comparable is entry
no. 1980 *piliç- "to divide", which they cite for
Semitic (*pVlVs.- "to divide, split") and
Agaw (*filic.- "divide").'
cf.
Collinder
'Uralic
Hungarian
farag- carve, cut, whittle (wood); hew, trim, chip (stone);
forgács shavings, scobs; chip, cuttings, filings |
Mansi pår- to plane ||
[? Nenets wara- id. |
Tawgi bara- id.; scrape, rub |
Enets H boða-, B bora- id.; id.; dress (hides), tan] |
Selkup poorgaana- cut leather, hides |
Kamass paarg&- scrape, cut, carve.
Onomatopoeic? '
Ain't that a bitch. How do we explain this distribution?
Torsten