From: Torsten
Message: 68435
Date: 2012-01-28
>Yes, but we were considering also to be a loan *into* Arabic (and Aramaic).
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "The Egyptian Chronicles" <the_egyptian_chronicles@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > (1) shackle (n.) O.E. sceacel, from P.Gmc. *skakula- (cf. M.Du.,
> > > > Du. schakel "link of a chain," O.N. skökull "pole of a
> > > > carriage"), of uncertain origin. The common notion of
> > > > "something to fasten or attach" makes a connection with shake
> > > > unlikely. The verb is first recorded mid-15c. Related:
> > > > Shackled; shackling.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > sceacel, es; m. I. a shackle :-- Sceacul vel bend columbar,
> > > > Wrt. Voc. i. 16, 44. II. the word also glosses plectrum :--
> > > > Scecele oððe slegele scecen wé plectra plumemus, ii. 66,
> > > > 78-80. Sceacelas plectra, 89, 10. [Prompt. Parv. schakkyl
> > > > numella. Ancren schulen ine so wide scheakeles pleien ine
> > > > hevuene . . . Ãet tet bodi schal beon hwar so euer þe gost
> > > > wule in one hondhwule, A. R. 94, 25. O. Du. schakel the link
> > > > or ring of a chain: Icel. skökull the pole of a carriage:
> > > > Swed. skakel the loose shaft of a carriage: Dan. skagle a
> > > > trace for a carriage.] v. sweor-sceacel; sceacan.
> > >
> > > 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-.
> > >
> > > For OE <sceacel> 'shackle, fetter' we should probably compare ON
> > > <skakkr> 'limping' and Grk. <skazo:> 'I limp' (from *skag-jo:).
> > > A shackle allows prisoners or animals to limp, but not move fast
> > > enough to get away. These look like zero-grade derivatives for
> > > which the PIE root has eight formal possibilities, concisely
> > > lumped
> > > as *sk(^)eh2/4g(^)-.
> > >
> > > I see no principled way of connecting this with your Arabic
> > > word, either through borrowing or long-range inheritance.
> > >
> >
> > Now it's difficult to see what's behind your 'principled'; it
> > could be:
> > 1) lack of opportunity; for the word to be borrowed between Germanic and Arabic there would have had to be contact between the respective peoples. But Arabic speakers, namely the Nabataeans, were active in the slave trade at the requisite time (1st cent.) and had a mercantile presence over much of the ancient world, eg. in the port of Puteoli.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteoli
> > http://nabataea.net/italy.html
> > And a large contingent of the slaves of Spartacus' revolt were
> > Germanic
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crixus
> > 2) lack of rules; but these are 'container loans', words designating implements of trade; you don't see Hubschmid et al. set up strict phonetic rules for the transfer of loans from one trading group to another.
>
> Without knowing the exact details of the soundlaws which governed borrowing, I still find it implausible (i.e. unprincipled) that an IE word with four consonants would enter Arabic (or any Semitic language) with only three. Note for example Hebrew <pilleges> 'courtesan, concubine' which is identical to Doric <pallax>, Latin <paelex>, etc. The ultimate source is unknown, but Hebrew-speakers did not squeeze out one consonant in order to fit the triliteral system. Plenty of words in Sem. lgs. exist outside the triliteral system.
>
> > Consider also these
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62173?var=0&l=1
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65984?var=0&l=1
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66829?var=0&l=1
> >
> > Background
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66820?var=0&l=1
> >
> > On 'hobble'
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46386?var=0&l=1
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/57180?var=0&l=1
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66821?var=0&l=1
> >
> > BTW
> > http://ordnet.dk/ods/ordbog?query=skamhugge
> > < *skaN-, 'skamhugge' originally cut the sinews behind the knee, immobilizing the animal or person, thus related to *skank- etc
>
> As for long-range speculation, the *-l- in the Gmc. word 'shackle'
> is evidently an implemental suffix. Semitic does have suffixal /l/
> (e.g. Heb. <kerem> 'garden', <karmel> 'site of gardens' vel sim.,
> name of a hill), but the Arabic examples cited by Ishinan show that
> {$kl} is a triliteral, and does not contain suffixal /l/.
> I doubt that Mo/ller would attempt to connect IE *ska:g- (orHe's not afraid to compare *k^-nk- with the Semitic triliteral s^-n-k.-
> whatever) with Sem. {$kl}.