Re: [tied] Terminology (Re: Piotr-)
- 02-09-03 23:22, alex wrote:
> The birds are mostly named because of other properties but notReally? So names like "blackbird", "(robin) redbreast" and "greylag" are
> because of the colour.
> Question: is there in any other IE language the story about the babiesI think this nursery myth originated somewhere in Germany, but I have no
> which are beared to the parents by a certain stork and if yes, where /
> when was attested first time this story?
idea when it was recorded for the first time. By the way, what's the
traditional attitude to storks in your contry? In Poland, which has the
largest population of them, being the nesting home of about 25% of the
world's white storks, they enjoy universal sympathy and are completely
synanthropic, always nesting on roofs, chimneys or specially prepared
poles (with lowercase p), and returning to them every spring. As far as
I know, it has "always" been so, and there's a tradititional prohibition
against disturbing or harming storks. Destroying the nest of a pair of
storks would be comparable in its odiousness to shooting an albatross. I
wonder if this is something local or more widespread.
- m_iacomi wrote:
>>what means the word in Bulgarian?
>> I was thinking of that but there are the problems with "breaz"
>> (piebald) and there should be a very unusual metathesis in one of
>> these words: barzã versus breaz.
> The word is from Bulgarian "breaz" (which could maybe be linked
> with the same root as Albanian "(i) bardhë". Diphthong /ea/ in
> that position can not arise from a substratal word.
>> About colours: we use colours to denominate vegetables, but weThere is no bird known to me which is denominated after its colour. And
>> do not use them for denominating birds, do we?
> Generally not, because the number of colours is limited while
> the number of birds' species is larger enough. Though in this
> particular case, people just did name the bird looking at its'
> general colour. Calling biological things with colours' name is
> not unusual in Romanian and calling this particular bird making
> reference to its' colour is common in several languages. So
> there is no reason preventing Romanians to call it in a similar
> manner: it is perfectly possible and it's what happened.
> Marius Iacomi
white is the goose too. I doubt that "barza" meant white. I don'T have a
better explanation but even Albanian does not help here . If in Alb.
there should have been the word "bardhë"= stork, then one could say,
yes, look , this is this. But there it is not a such bird. I assume that
your "particular case" is very weak argued having just a phonetical
similitude as basis and an wished semantical development.
If the "zã" is a suffix like in "pupa-za", "cinte-za" then we will have
to deal with a root as "bar-za".
Any idea regarding birds like storks and which will relate to "bar-"?