Re: hunt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > More likely, in my opinion, *drenk- originally meant "get soaked, waterlogged, filled with water" (cf. 'drown') and was related somehow (dialectically?) to the *d/tran,W- "dregs"/"draw"/"drag" etc water transport word complex.
>
> I'll have to look at *drenk-. I don't have books handy but I seem to recall a less than straightforward IE derivation in the EtWbb.

Pokorny's derivation of Gmc. *drenk- by nasalization of PIE *dHreg^- is not bad. I see however that his *dHera:gH- (whence 'draw' etc.) is only represented in Gmc. and Slavic, and /g/ in the latter makes it hard to associate with *dHreg^- anyway. He brings in *tragH- (Lat. <traho:>, <tra:gula>, etc.; "dissimilation of spirants" in Proto-Latin from *dHra(:)gH- is ad hoc).

If your water-transport-word theory indeed holds water, perhaps we are dealing with a PIE root *treh2- extended by *gH (thus no root-restriction problem); this *treh2gH-, *tra:gH- (in IE dialects losing aspiration, *tra:g-) might have been borrowed into Proto-Lappic as *Dra(:)G-, then back into both Gmc. and Slavic. Gutenbrenner suggested a similar mechanism for getting 'boar' into Gmc. beside 'farrow' etc., *pork- or *park- being borrowed into the adstrate language as *BarG-, then into Gmc. Since I know little about Uralic, this appeal to "Proto-Lappic" to get voiced fricatives may not itself hold water, however. It is really just a wild guess.

DGK