Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Skok quotes A. Matzenauer's theory of the kinship between this Serbo-Croatian word and German Rumpf. How can we mention this? Probably cognate with German Rumpf (trunk)? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, SC word is a reflex of Common Slavic *rępъ (Polish rząp, dialectal Ukrainian репиця (repycja)) which itself is apparently of obscure origin. German word traces to MLG rump (trunk) < Proto-Germanic *xrumpaz, which you cannot formally match to Proto-Slavic word because the sequence -um- would've yielded Common Slavic *ǫ and not *ę, which presupposes pre-form with *-em-/*-en- or *-im-/*-in-. Common Germanic reconstruction furthermore doesn't really agree with Common Slavic reconstruction in meaning, which renders the connection rather dubious. I wouldn't mention Matzenauer's speculation unless it can be corroborated by additional evidence, as the match is far from ideal. --Ivan Štambuk 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But they do differ in meaning, as trunk, torso is dissimilar from tail. Moreover, according to Gebrüder Grimm, Rumpf descends from an older verb rimpfen (Prät. rampf, P.P. gerumpfen), so the pre-form with *-im- is at hand. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I did say that they do differ in meaning, and that is one of the argument why they could not be related! My sources (Vladimir Orel's lexicon of Proto-Germanic from 2003) say that the German word is descended from MLG form, and the shift /p/ > /pf/ is perfectly in accordance with High German consonant shift, and given the cognates in other Germanic languages (Orel mentions only dialectal Norwegian rump (flat hill top, butocks) and Middle English rump (podex) - the scarcity of which disturbs me), it's highly unlikely that the the etymology by Gebrüder Grimm made in times of advent of Indo-Europeans Studies can be held as plausible today..
Germanic borrowings into Proto-Slavic, which were quite excessively assigned in the past, are today very meticulously analyzed, and it is highly unlikely that these two proto-words, *rępъ and *xrumpaz, incompatible both formally and semantically, will be accepted as related in some general etymologist circles.. I must strongly suggest that we drop this one, unless some recent up-to-date research proves otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)