[tied] Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Alexandru Moeller <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> Am 05.04.2011 10:10, schrieb Torsten:
> > 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.
> >

>
>
>
> regardless of one or of an another scenario, the phonetic similarity
> and the appropiate meaning should make these words to be very
> appropiate. Actually, the schöffe, saupen, jupân, ^zupan, cioban,
> they look much to appropiate in appearance and in the meaning for
> not beeing related to each other somehow..

And at the same time too dis-similar to be straight inheritance from PIE, so they must be loans.

As for the -b- instead -p- of cioban which you were wondering about
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67255
Grimm is puzzled by exactly the same in Latin scabinus
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67252
'early (before i-umlaut to place) and with Roma­nce change of the p to b the former form entered Latin as scabinus, beside that scabinius, scabineus, and, in a later reshaped form scabini, scabiniones, eschivini;'

Not Romance, I think. I suspect instead that <schöffe>/<schepen> is a pre-Grimm loan in Germanic. If it came with the Bastarnian invasion of Przeworsk and later Germany it might even be a loan from Dacian.


Torsten