From: george knysh
Message: 64486
Date: 2009-07-30
--- On Wed, 7/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Slavic *pUlkU definitely looks like Germanic *fulkaz borrowed
> through the usual phonological filters (an inherited syllabic /l/
> would have been much more likely to vocalise as *Il). Lith. pu~lkas
> and Latv. pu`lks are loans via old East Slavic rather than directly
> from Germanic.
>
> GK: And is *fulkaz also inherited or does the Semitic loan
> notion have some credibility? ****
(TP)You have all the facts before you, you decide. Often the situation doesn't get better than this.
****GK: To me it looks as though the Slavic borrowing from Germanic (and the Baltic from the Slavic) is the best current solution. In the sense that this scenario brings together very acceptable linguistic and historical data. While the connection between Germanic and Semitic seems linguistically arguable the historical context involved is more than elusive. Perhaps there is another connection and the Semitic parallel is just an interesting coincidence.****