From: Torsten
Message: 66082
Date: 2010-04-14
>What I think is notable here is that the sense "to pack" for the pakk- verb simply doesn't exist in the languages of the area from where the verb most likely came. I've experienced that a Dutch woman corrected my 'pakken' to 'inpakken'. What happened, I think, is that 'pack in' vel sim. was borrowed in the English and Scandinavian languages which were at the passive ende of the Dutch / Low German trade
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Given the connection with wool and the Low German provenance,
> > > it is plausible to regard 'pack' as borrowed from a
> > > Nordwestblock word for 'fleece, wool', related to Greek <pókos>
> > > 'uncombed wool, fleece; tuft of wool; sheep-shearing', from the
> > > Indo-European root *pek^- (IEW 797). This same noun, IE
> > > *pók^os, became Gmc. *fahaz and is reflected as ON <fæ´r>
> > > 'sheep'. One might expect NWB *pakas. However, since the /a/
> > > of the West Gmc. forms has not undergone /j/-umlaut, the /kk/
> > > cannot be derived from /j/-gemination. That is, we cannot
> > > postulate an early WGmc *pakaz leading to a Class I weak verb
> > > *pakjan, later *pakkjan, for it would have become *pekkjan in
> > > Old Saxon and Old Dutch, whence MLG/MD *pekken not <pakken>.
> > > Similarly, the nouns could not have arisen from early WGmc
> > > *pakja- and *pakjan-. If the source was NWB, the gemination
> > > very likely occurred in NWB, and a form already having *pakk-
> > > was then borrowed into WGmc. Without pretending any certainty
> > > about NWB morphology, I will guess that *pakas 'fleece, wool'
> > > had the associated adjective *pakyas 'pertaining to wool',
> > > which regularly became *pakkas, and was borrowed into early
> > > WGmc as *pakkaz. This adjective was then substantivized as
> > > 'bundle or load of wool', with a masculine or neuter noun
> > > subsumed, and this in turn produced a Class II weak verb
> > > *pakko:n, later (in Ingvaeonic) *pakko:jan, and a wk. m. noun
> > > *pakkan- 'woolly mass' vel sim.
> >
> >
> > I know that the association Low Countries ~ wool trade comes easy
> > to mind to Anglophones, but a slight semantic correction:
> >
> > 'pakken' is the standard Dutch, as 'packen' is the colloquial
> > German (from Low German, note, no pf-) word for the general
> > concept of "grasp, take" (Engl. 'pack' is Dutch 'inpakken', note
> > the Lat. impaccare, not *paccare in the 1280 contract), not for
> > some specialization of it as the word is used in English and the
> > Scandinavian languages.
> > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/pak
> > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/aanpakken
> > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/inpakken
> > http://www.systranet.com/dictionary/dutch-english/slag
>
> Yes, but the OED does cite "pro lana pakkanda" from 1341. The old
> simplex was simply less common than compound verbs. The current
> sense of <pakken> can be related to one of the senses of English
> <pack>, 'to stow or transport goods and the like as a business'.
> Those in the packing trade not only packed stuff, they grasped and
> took stuff to someplace else.
> > In Dutch, further, a 'pak' is a suit, ie an ensemble, as isI agree that in 'pak slag', 'pak' is an indication of quantity, as is 'Tracht' in 'Tracht Prügel'
> > German 'Tracht' (< tragen "carry"), and further, in Dutch you can
> > get 'een pak slag' "a beating" (cf German 'eine Tracht Prügel',
> > where otherwise Prügel = "stick, club, baton")
> > http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Pr%C3%BCgel
> > (< MHG brügel "piece of wood" says DEO)
> > so I suspect we are dealing with our old friend *bak- "stick (of
> > wood)" here, that the original sense of the noun was "bundle" as
> > in Dutch, and that the specialized sense as in English 'pack'
> > spread with Hansa and Dutch trade.
>
> Suits are more commonly woolen than wooden, so this sense would
> seem to support derivation from 'bundle of wool' rather than
> 'bundle of sticks'.
>
> As for <een pak slag>, I think the force of <pak> is not 'with a
> stick' but 'thorough'. We have <een pak van het hart> 'a load off
> one's mind' and <een pak voor de broek> 'a good spanking' (i.e. 'a
> load for the trousers, cf. <voor de broek geven> 'to spank'). That
> is, the sense 'load' of <pak> becomes 'large amount' or 'thorough
> application' of whatever.
> We can imagine *<een pak slaan> 'to beat a load', i.e. 'to give aI don't think that has been attested.
> thorough beating',
> and the derived nominal phrase <een pak slag> 'a (thorough)The linguistic relevance of my remark is that pakken "grasp, grab, take" and inpakken "pack" then would be words which came from below, not from the top.
> beating' (cf. <zijn slag slaan> 'to make one's coup, see one's
> chance' with <slag> cognate accusative to <slaan>).
>
> > > When mercantilism reached the Low Countries, all three nouns
> > > *pakkaz, -am, -an were used more or less interchangeably in the
> > > wool trade. Of course, other scenarios are possible. I am
> > > merely trying to establish such an etymology as plausible.
> >
> > Mercantilism
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
> > with its emphasis on protection of the domestic market was an
> > attempt by other nations, in particular France, to protect
> > themselves against the promiscuous trading of the Dutch. I don't
> > think there was a time before which the Dutch didn't trade.
>
> I misused the term 'mercantilism', and I stand corrected.