Re: [tied] Vanir

--- Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

> If that c^udI is an independent borrowing, one
> should trace the donor
> (Gothic, if I got you right) and the time. The most
> problematic moment
> is that normalized ORuss /c^/ could sount as [c'] or
> even [t'] (if <
> *tj) in some northern dialects of ORuss, so the
> borrowing can't be
> undoubtedly ascribed to the time _before_ the
> process /*tj/ > /an
> affricate/ was finished (and I'm not sure when it
> happened, ca. 7th c.
> ?).
> So, I must admit I can't say anything about your
> opinion with certainty.
>
> Sergei

*****GK: Is it absolutely necessary, from a linguistic
point of view, that a word like "Chud'" should have
been borrowed after the process you mention? Could it
have been borrowed earlier and then evolved along with
other similar words? For instance does the loss of
nasals in most Slavic languages imply that a name like
"Svyatoslav" could not have existed before as
"Sventoslav" and then just evolved? Or the switch from
hard "g" to soft "h" in names like Grigori/Hryhorij?
Unless such evolution is linguistically impossible I
would be inclined, on historical grounds to date the
borrowing quite early.*****

>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com