From: dgkilday57
Message: 68427
Date: 2012-01-27
>This notion is refuted only for <sceacel> 'shackle', not for <sceacel> 'plectrum'. My point was that the OE homophones are probably etymologically distinct. I agree that the sense of 'shackle' is distant from that of 'shake'.
> DGK wrote: These look like etymologically distinct words. A plectrum moves
> back and forth, so OE <sceacel> in that sense could easily be related to
> <sceacan> 'to shake'. The only plausible comparandum I have seen is Skt.
> <khajati> 'agitates, churns' which would imply a PIE root *(s)kh3eg-.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ISHINAN: Thank you for your response. Am I to understand that you are in
> disagreement with the OED findings in favor of a sense of "a plectrum moves
> back and forth" and linking it to the notion of 'SHAKE'? My understanding
> is that this idea was previously investigated and rejected, years ago.
> Moreover, I am at a loss as to why this suggestion is being reignited in
> light of what the dictionary currently states on this subject. In fact, the
> OED is quite explicit in refuting the notion of 'SHAKE'.
> Just in case, for your edification, I am taking the liberty of quoting'Hook' opens up a new can of worms. I might have something in my notes for another day.
> verbatim, the Oxford English dictionary's entry for 'SHACKLE' (OED Compact
> Edition, vol. ii p.585):
>
> "The notion common to these words appears to be that of 'something to fasten
> or attach'. On this ground it seems difficult to refer them to the Teut.
> *shak- SHAKE v. Falk and Torp suggest to the Teut. *skaek- :-
> pre.Teut.*skeg-, a doublet of keg-, whence Teut. *haek-: hak- :hok-) found
> in G. haken , OE. hoc HOOK sb.: but this is very doubtful.)"
>
> http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/LINKS/SHKL.html
>
> Also
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=shackle&searchmode=none
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ISHINAN: It is quite fascinating that Falk and Torp's suggestion that the G.
> Haken ((*haek-) mentioned in the Shackle entry in the OED (although
> unrelated) also corresponds exactly to Classical Arabic 'H.gn' which means
> (hook, hooked, crooked). A JPEG of this latest Arabic entry and its English
> translation from the dictionary can be viewed at the end of the article
> below (click the following URL).
>
> http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/LINKS/SHKL.html
> At any rate, based on the OED, I am afraid your 'comparandum' with Skt.The OED itself compares <khajati> with <shake>. Uhlenbeck (Kgf. et. Wb. der ai. Spr.) noted that ON cognates of <shake> involve churning butter, agreeing well with the Skt. verb and its derivatives.
> <khajati> is out of the question.
>
> Thank you for your response, it is much appreciated.