🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8364@charon.cwi.nl>, aeb@cwi.nl (Andries Brouwer) writes:
> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
> (answering a post that I cancelled because I noticed a typing mistake,
> and also because I wanted to add some more details - maybe the
> cancelling failed to work)

The revised version is now available here.  I answered your post late
last night (c. 12.30 Memphis Time, but 6:30 GMT).  Perhaps I read
it before you canceled it?

[stuff omitted]

> My suggestion was not that the word borrowed meant `week', but that it
> was the Latin word "vicis", and hence meant just what Latin "vicis" meant
> (something like `turn', for example). In my repost I show a Bible fragment
> where the Greek text with Latin translation containing "vicis"
> has Gothic translation containing "wikon" - showing that in that
> context at least the Latin and Germanic words have the same meaning.

Yes -- but since Wulfila worked primarily from the Greek, I don't know
what that proves.  (Of course, he did know Latin too, so perhaps there
is a connection.)

>>> [Not that it matters, but Kluge supports the idea "borrowed from Latin".
>> 
>>Are we looking at the same edition of Kluge?  Mine -- the 21st edition
>>of 1975 -- says "Dieser Begriff [not: "Dieses Wort"!] ist in vorschrist-
>>licher Zeit von den Roemern zu allen Germanen gelangt."  True, he calls
>>the etymon 'week' "gemeingermanisch" rather than "urgermanisch", but
>>he says nothing about borrowing.
>> 
> My edition is older.

Amazing how Kluge kept changing his mind so long after his death,
isn't it?

--Leo Connolly