Re: [tied] kuningas <-> knyaz

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 8164
Date: 2001-07-30

Point taken. Still, the Old Prussian form is rather different from the East Baltic one (and presumably represents an independent loan, its form clearly indicating mediaeval German as the source). Since the borrowing of *kuningaz into Finnish and Proto-Slavic must have occurred very early, an early cultural borrowing into East Baltic is a priori likely as well and I wouldn't rule it out too hastily. Note that the "prince" word, like other titles, is particularly prone to phonetic simplification. In Germanic, the suffix -ing- is also common and does not normally cause or undergo dissimilation EXCEPT in this very word (German K├Ânig < kunig ~ chuning, English king < cyning, Norwegian konge < konungr).
 
Piotr
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Sergejus Tarasovas
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] kuningas <-> knyaz

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote:
> Germanic *kuning-az was borrowed into Proto-Slavic as *kUnIng-U (and into East Baltic as *kunig-as, with the second nasal lost through dissimilation) ...

Please refer to my posting earlier on this thread:
1. Baltic, not East Baltic, cf. the Prussian form from Enchiridion.
2. Nowadays most of the aucto:re:s agree on the Middle High German borrowing, the old-fashioned dissimilational explanation is unlikely. *-ing-  is a very productive quality-denoting suffix in, eg, Lithuanian, which has tons of words of the  ...Vn-ing-  structure. No dissimilation is registered, though.

Sergei



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.