Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> [Alex:] > But is a "skonpU" in slavic? I know just "skupo" but my
> knowledge are as usual limited, so I try to make a search on the web
> for finding out what about: ...
>
> Polish, as usual, keeps the nasal of *sko~pU:
>
> ska,py [skompI] 'stingy (of people); meagre, scarce (of things)'
>
> Piotr
1)does polish "sko~pU" means "expensive"?
2)why should change Rom. then an "np" > "mp"?
An another example fron "np" > "mp" was given that Slavic "konpona"
(meaning=?) > Rom. cumpãnã=balance
But the Rom. cumpãt= balance of the soul is given from latin *compitus
(> computus)= to calculate.
So, latin *compitus, slavic konpona should give one and the same thing
in Rom.
cumpãnã, cumpãni, cumpãt, cumpãtare, cumpãtat.
It seems that the word cumpãna is given as slavic just for this "m"
which is there supposed to come from an slavic "n".
and here is the interesting point. If the "o" became "u" in Rom. then we
have in the work of procopius already the word "munte"= mountain that
means in the VI century. That means that as the slavs begun to come (
not to invade) in south of Danube in Nord of Danube ( where is attested
the toponym) was already the change o>u.
Since it seems that the "np" does not exist in Rom ( is there any in the
old words?) one should accept due missing a better explanation the
slavic "np" . But the slavic "np" is attested how?
How would looks like a form with "mp" in slavic? Would it be loaned as
"np" or how?