From: Tavi
Message: 69753
Date: 2012-06-04
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>Matasovic reconstructs *Flowjo-/*Flowja:.
> The prototype of the Celtic word(s) would have been something like
> *plu-iH, possibly alongside *plu-i-o-.
>
What I meant is a plough moves through earth in the same way than a rudder moves through water. Also, I don't think the source language was Celtic.> Semantically, given its
> morphological derivation, it has to do with the notion of sailing
> (that's what *pleu- means), not with breaking water (or earth, or wind).
> It certainly doesn't mean 'plough' in Celtic: the plough doesn't sail or
> float, you know.
>
There's also the Latinized Raethic form plaumoratum, which designated a kind of wheeled plough, hence the second member *ratum.> There are formal difficulties as well. The NW Germanic
> word is *plo:Ga- (or possibly *plo:Gu-), with a long vowel incompatible
> with the Celtic short *u and a velar suffix not seen in Celtic (how did
> it get there?).
>
In that case, we could recurr to Afrasian *pVlaX- 'to split, to cut', as Vennemann did.> If you can't explain the formal details and correlate
> them with the trajectories of borrowing, *plu-iH/o- and *plo:Ga/u-
> remain just a pair of lookalikes, not cognates, whether inherited or
> borrowed.
>
I'd call this the ostrich approach.> Given the attested pattern of vowel substitution between Germanic and
> Slavic (*o: -> *u), Slavic *plugU is likely to be a loan from Germanic
> rather than the other way round. I don't pretend to know its ultimate
> source, but I prefer to admit my ignorance on matter this than to patch
> it up with so-so stories.
>
Why so?> > IMHO these Germanic-Afrasian (especially Semitic) isoglosses must
> > reflect the languages spoken in Central Europe Neolithic.
>
> I can see what your opinion is, but it still looks completely unfounded.
>