Re: (unknown)

 

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 2012-03-12 03:38, Rick McCallister pisze:
> >
> > > For those of you tired of arguing over the same old thing,
> > > here's something new to argue about: badgers.
> > > My 2 cents: Isn't there a Gaelic term taigh (vek sim.) for
> > > "badger" that also comes from *tek'-?
> > > French, of course, has blaireau and Spanish has tejón --which
> > > I'm sure one of our friends will shortly link both to
> > > Vasco-Tasmanian or whatever.
> >
> > Badgers were discussed on Cybalist as early as the end of the
> > previous millennium:
> >
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/4398
> >
> > I think Joshua Katz's badger article (1998,
> >"Hittite tas^ku- and the Indo-European Word for 'Badger'",
> > _Historische Sprachforschung_ 111, 61-82,
> > based on his UCLA conference paper) is still the last word on the
> > subject. At any rate, Katz's analysis militates against the
> > traditionally postulated connection between PGmc. *þaxsu- etc. and
> > *tetk^- 'build'. Not the builder of setts, but rather the owner of
> > smelly glands.
> >
>
> Reminds me of the unexplained d- in *(d)akru-. Is *(t)ašku-
> neuter?
>
> Another seeming -tk- -> -þk- -> -sk- here:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64572
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48943
>
> The Dutch and Low German taks "badger" (not **das or **daks) is a
> problem cf. also
> http://runeberg.org/svetym/1046.html
> 
> ****R
> Wouldn't it be from *thaks > taks?

No, AFAIK all German dialects, plus Dutch, have *þ- -> d-; *þ- -> t- is North Germanic (plus Frisian?).

> Perhaps a folk etymology with the root of thatch

But that doesn't do that. It follows the rules.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dach

> and textile?

Late loan both places, so unlikely.


Torsten