Re: [tied] Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
>
> >You don't examine in order to get a conclusion every scoopful of
> >water you bail out of you boat or scoop out of your barrel or ever
> >scapulaful of half-rotten wood you scapula out of your logboat.
>
> Thus is the German language, since "vox populi, vox Dei".
> The Diutisk folk has opted for that, so there's nothing we can
> do about it.

More like 'vox Georgii, vox Dei' ;-)

The "scoop" interpretation of 'Recht schöpfen' is not the original one, acccording to Grimm, cf the entry
schöpfen I "creare" 4 a
in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67252
note, not in II "haurire".
So you are alone with the interpretation that "haurire" was the original sense in 'Recht schöpfen'.

> >It is a singularly unhelpful metaphor.
>
> Jedes Volk schöpft aus dem Vollen nach Gutdünken. I.e., peoples
> never ask linguists whenever they invent vocabulary and idiomatic
> phrases.

I think you mean George doesn't.
As I said, I think the development was
'recht schöpfen' -> 'Recht schöpfen',
with the adverb 'recht' "right" reinterpreted as a new noun 'Recht' which then was understood to mean "the law", and as this interpretation now meant either "create the law", which a judge obviously doesn't do, or "scoop the law", which is odd, the Germans opted for the latter, and yes, without consulting a linguist who would have set them right.

> >I think de Vries goes overboard here, anyway this does demonstrate
> >that the root underlying <smith> does not in itself imply that the
> >material worked on is a metal, actually the facts seem to point at
> >something more slushy, like plaster.
>
> schmieren < ahd. smirwen
> Schmer (e.g. in Schmerbauch) < ahd. smero "Fett", zu idg. *smer-
> "Fett"

You'd have to explain the -r.

***R

Looks like USGerman/Yiddish schmier "spread --as a quantity of semisoft spreadable substance" as in "smearcase, smearcheese" for creamcheese, or "gimme a schmier on that bagel"


> schmeißen < mhd. smizen "streichen, schmieren; schlagen" < ahd.
> (bi)smizan "beflecken", engl. smite "schlagen", got. bismeitan
> "bestreichen", gasmeitan "aufstreichen", Grundbedeutung "streichen",
> zu idg. *smeid-; zu *sme(i) "schmieren, drüberstreichen", vermutl.
> verwandt mit Schminke, schmeicheln.

Yes, yes.

> [NB streichen also means "to hit, strike", Streich "hit, blow,
> thrust; e.g. Schwertstreich; Staatstreich "coup d'êtat".)

> Schmied < ahd. smid, got. aiza-smiDa "Erzschmied", zu idg. *smei-,
> *sm&i, *smi- "schnitzen"
>
> >(cf. also Da.
> >smitte n. "contagion",
> >smitte v. "infect",
> >smitsom "contagious",
> >besmitte "desecrate";
>
> cf. German beschmutzen

You'd have to argue that *smei- = *smeu-


> (BTW, in Suebian and Alemanian German, Schmutz also means
> "fat, grease" = Fett, Schmer, Schmalz)
>
> >Only in the sense that he is a divider, separating the good from
> >the bad, cf. <schicht> "layer", and so is a Schöpfer "creator";
> >he takes out what is not supposed to be there. They discriminate
> >bad/unneeded/unwanted from good/needed/wanted.
>
> It seems that only the verb (ver)schaffen pushes the judge
> into the vicinity of the schaff-/scheff-/schöpf-/schopp-/schupp-
> family. Otherwise, his main deeds are concentrated in the
> verb richten (from the rect- family, cf. correct, rectitude,
> direct); also the name of his profession: Richter (deverbal).
> Thus, only the Schöffe remains übrig.
>
> >But the Freischöffe of the
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehmic_court
> >could.
>
> Oh, das Femegericht. But it is quite "recent" (the oldest
> attestation: the 13th century).

Nothing says it couldn't be older. As a secret court the Fehmgericht would not be mentioned in the Sachsenspiegel.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67254


> Indeed, the Schöffen justices had
> more power. But even today, a Schöffe is a so-called "Laienrichter".

And that makes him a representative of something extra-judicial.

> AFA the variants of the word are concerned, take into consideration
> the older forms: Schöppe and Saupe (the latter esp. in East
> Germany).
>
> Dorfschöppe
> Landschöppe
> Amtslandschöppe
> geschworener Schöppe
> Saupe
> Saupenrichter

Grimm doesn't know 'Saupe'. Do you have a reference?

> >The Freischöffe is a free agent, and I suspect his subordination
> >is a later thing.
>
> That's correct. But even in much earlier (medieval) times, the
> village Schöffe = Schöppe, was an assistant/councilor/counsel
> assisting the... Dorfschulze (Dorfschultheiß). Usually, a
> peasant invested by the liege lord of the area.

The Freischöffen were a different thing.


> [I'd rather investigate whether there is the possibility for
> Schöppe/Saupe/Schöffe to have been influenced or to have
> been borrowed from a neighboring Slavic language in the East,
> župan. In East Germany there are many people with last names
> derived from this Slavic word: Suppan, Zschuppan, Zuppan,
> and (I assume) Zschöppe, Tschöppe etc.]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Župan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Župa
>
> The community called župa comprised several villages in the
> incipient medieval times. In certain political environments and
> epochs and geographical areas, a zhupan had indeed the power
> and prerogatives of a judge! And both the Frankish empire and
> the German empire neighbored as well as "agglutinated" areas
> where this notion/rank zhupan was ubiquitous (so much so that
> in certain areas of German native-speakers, i.e. East-Germany
> and Austria, there are many people having last names derived
> from the Slavic Zhupan). NB: in German there is no sound
> for ž, so it is pronounced voiceless "sch" (Schupan, Schuppan).
> (cf. pleasure, measure pronounced by German-speakers
> Plescher, Mescher)

Polish 'pan'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_honorifics

> >Yup. 'Schichten'.
>
> Your assumption schichten must be a Sackgasse, a false assumption.
> There ain't no hint to connect Schöppe/Saupe/Schöffe with it.
> The origin of Schöffe must be different (either schöpfen +
> schaffen or something else).

Sez you.


> >>E.g. in everyday's idiomatic usage: "Indem er auf diese Weise
> >>Recht verschafft, erschafft er eine neue Situation: Durch diesen
> >>Präzedenzfall können nunmehr die Freischaffenden von dieser
> >>Steuer befreit werden. Das schafft der Richter, ohne Gesetzes-
> >>schöpfer zu sein. Er schöpft aber aus dem Vollen. Die Anwälte
> >>der Gegenseite behaupten trotzdem, dass die Rechtsmittel noch
> >>nicht ausgeschöpft seien. Die Kläger wollten sich nicht äußern,
> >>sie sagten lediglich, sie gingen nach Hause, sie seien schon
> >>erschöpft".
> >
> > Yes. And? Most of those were everyday uses.
>
> The same words embedded in different semantic and flexionary
> contexts have slightly or completely different meanings. These
> everyday's lingo examples show how... schöpferisch (creative)
> one can get by using esp. schöpfen and nouns, adj., adv. based
> on schöpf-.
>
> This is important, since your basic scepticism refers to the
> idea schöpfen, because you rather expect something like
> "sculpting, cutting (off), excavating" to have been the initial
> thought.

I can't see how that is relevant then.


> >>Especially in the case of szép (and
> >>other [Sep-] Uralic words that also mean "beautiful, pretty").
> >
> >None of them occur in his three examples.
>
> In your
Rédei's
> initial list with Uralic and Turkic words, there were
> some Uralic examples of <shepa> with the same meaning ("beautiful")
> as in Hungarian. Esp. in Chuvash. Whereupon I posted the info
> with the Bashkir tribes Yurmatu and Yeney.

You are changing the subject. We were talking about Rédei's three examples.

> >>It is relevant, since your initial idea revolves around the
> >>meanings "wright, smith = creator", while you reject, for German,
> >>the other idea "Wasser schöpfen".
> >
> >Which is irrelevant.
>
> What is irrelevant?

Your whole confused jumble of comments of comments of your misunderstanding of Rédei's three illustrative examples of a semantic transition "skilled" -> "master, smith".


> The connection smith<->Schöffe (Laienrichter)?
> Today, you even pointed out that a smith, initially, also used
> wood, not only metals.

How is that relevant to Rédei's examples?

> >The reason that passage is there is that I cited the entire
> >entry for *śeppä "geschickt" in UEW. I cited it for no other
> >reason.
>
> And what's the final conclusion?

I don't have a final conclusion. I was trying to point out that *śeppä "skilled; artisan" seemed to match the *skep- "create" etc we discussed.


> Is this *sheppa father/mother to Uralic shepa/szép "beautiful"?

*śeppä "geschickt" is Rédei's reconstruction in UEW for Proto-Finno-Ugric for the individual FU words mentioned in the entry, as you very well know. I suspect you of deliberately trying to cause confusion here.


> >The Uralic people was a forest people, and for such a people
> >forest skills are important. The Hungarians did of course
> >behave more Turkic-/Iranian-like.
>
> It's not matter of behavioral, but of the origin of the vocabulary.

I was trying to find an explanation for why you think the Uralics were not a forest people.

> Indeed, Hungarian has a certain important percentage of main
> words of Iranian (incl. Alanian) and North-Turkic origin, along
> with the Uralic part and the Slavic part of the old vocabulary.
> For example the above mentioned zhupan also existed up to the
> 18th century, or so, in kingdom Hungary as well: adapted as
> ispán ['iSpa:n] "chief of a county", in Hung. ispánság was the
> equivalent of the comitatus. Translated into german: Gespan and
> Gespanschaft: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gespanschaft

Through 'Jespan'?

> But the words for wood, forest and the like sound completely
> different although many of them are also Uralic (e.g. fa
> "wood (lignum)" and "tree"). Whereas some of the terms referring
> to working something in wood, e.g. carpenter, are not always
> Uralic. Ács [a:tS] "carpenter" seems to be Turkic, ağaç [a-atS]
> "tree".

Hungarian would be a case like Bulgarian where the bottom language ended on top. Seems they forgot to bring the carpenters from the forest.


BTW, I suppose you realize that if you want to join Schöffe and župan you would have to posit the existence of some ethnic group present in both the Slavic lands and in Westphalia (both words denote a person of power, so it's difficult to imagine how it would spread without a taking over of power), and that can't have been Slavic. I'm curious as to how you would avoid positing an invasion from the east to account for that.

Torsten