From: Torsten
Message: 65342
Date: 2009-11-01
>In this case, it's more like a 'languages of the amber trail' theory. That trail would span many languages, with rich opportunity for loaning various variants of the same term.
> --- 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' intoYou have to remember where the pig came from.
> 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.