--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:49:42 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> Just an uninformed guess: couldn't <Istros> also be from *srowos
> "flowing, river" (srowos > stro(o)s > istros)? I know we have
> Thracian <Strumo:n> (< *sru-men) without i-, but who can say whether
> the "Thracian" in one classical source is the same "Thracian" as in
> another (or even the same) classical source?
Who _is_ informed about Thracian? Here's another guess, modifying
yours: the Thracian form was *Istrus, with Thracian (dialectal) open
[u], rendered as <-os> by Greeks, < *n-sru- (with syllabic *n >*i,
cf. Balto-Slavic [syll. n] > [in] (> [nas. i] > [denasal. i], cf.
also retraction of stress to /i,/-prefix in Lithuanian words with
similar sructure), semantically 'flowing into (the Black Sea)'. In
that case one could reconstruct OPruss *Instru-, explaining
Lithuanian I,sra` (along with I,sruti`s) as a back-formation from
I,sruti`s (I,-sru-t-is interpreted as I,-sr-ut-is), and derive that
*Instru- from *in + *sru-.
Sergei