--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> From: Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@ ...> wrote:
> > From: Torsten <tgpedersen@ ...>
> >
> > --- In cybalist@... s.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > > de Vries
> > > 'súgr m. 'sea' (poet.), lit. 'the sucking (one)'
> > > >
> > > > What "these words"? I am precisely speaking of cases where
> > > > there AREN'T variants with nasals, e.g. "suck".
> > >
> > More like "to flow" --passive rather than active sucking
>
> ??
> What do you mean?
> One could see "suck" as an intensive or inchoate form of "flow".
> While the sea may sometimes suck in a metaphorical sense, in a
> physical sense, it flows and many of the other forms, such as
> "seethe,", "sap" etc seem more like flows.
I don't know about the seas and coasts you know, but I can assure you that the the sea sucks more than metaphorically on the Danish (ie. Jutland) west coast, the undertow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertow_%28wave_action%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_current
there costs peoples', esp. tourists', lives every year (cf German Sog "suction, slipstream, undertow")
> I guess if you could see
> "suck" as originally meaning "to make flow," you'd be on better
> semantic grounds
I suppose your motivation for that would be that it would make a nice neutral middle ground between "suck" and "swamp". But nice neutral words aren't borrowed, every language is already full of them, you need them to designate a unique object or concept in order for them to be borrowed. And in this case a middle ground isn't necessary for another reason, namely that there is actually no gap between "suck" and "swamp", swamps will suck you under just as much as seas will.
More facts:
http://tinyurl.com/y9td5jv
pp. 6-7 translated
'In Læsø Birketingbog 19th April 1704 have been entered some testimonies, which gives us some information about said salt works (taken from Grüner Nielsen's book), Poul Sørensen in Storhauge testified that in 1698 he was out on the Røn on Edelberg's request for under Captain Ove Mathiessen's direction to help dig ('kaste' "throw") a well to take in the saltworks' 'Syldt' ('Søle', 'Sø' = salt water with higher salinity than sea water, normally 'sø' = "lake; sea"). Ove Mathiessen demanded that there should be dug deeper and deeper, and so they dug so long as until they came to brackish water or fresh water, Mathiessen also let a little well, which he had himself, be dug deeper, but there they also got nothing but brackish water, and then he realized that he had dug too much [forgravet sig], and after that there was no further digging in the big well. The witness often came out to the Røn and saw that Edelberg had small holes dug on Læsømaade and took sø ['tage sø', normally of ships "take in water by waves breaking over them", since 'sø' = "lake; sea", here "take in concentrated salt water"]. The witness Karen Pedersdatter had helped to dig small holes in old Læsø manner, and there was never taken salt from the big well, Oluf Lauridsen had previously served Edelberg for 3 summers, and then they also took water from the small holes but many times they could have seethed salt and had to give it up anyway because they could not get 'sø' to seethe from, however many holes they dug. Margaret Nielsdatter and Oluf Lauridsen said that it was not by Edelberg's complacency or neglect that works had become so 'huillet' (with so many holes?), but there could not be obtained sufficient [quantities of] 'sø' from the small holes, although holes daily with big effort were dug up 2 times, and 4-5 hogsheads of 'fere water' (brackish water from the Fed) was scooped out of each hole before they could get to the 'sø'. Even they could not get more than 3-4 hogshead 'sø'. Sometimes they got 'sø' only once, then came rain or high tide, which sometimes went into the house, so they had to dig new holes and might search six days fro places where 'sø' could be obtained.'
There is later mention of salt works projects on Læsø which were solar driven. That would have been easier in the much warmer Bronze Age.
> South American Spanish uses chupar "to suck" for beber, tomar "to
> drink" when referring to alcohol and Peruvians supposedly use it
> also for cars "chupa gasolina". I've been told this is a Simiruna
> substrate
What's the etymology of 'chupar'?
Torsten