Re: [tied] Yers

By the way, here I have often written an "y" instead of U. It is due
to the usual transliteration of Bulgarian in common writing. I
hope you still understand what I meant with the examples.

Eva


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" <
fortuna11111@...> wrote:

>
> > *tIrnU (> OCS trUnU) is a common Slavic word. Cf. OPol.

tarn,

> Mod.Pol.
> > ciern' (from the collective *tIrnIje). As for the "dropping of the
> > r-sonance", there are some earlier postings in the archive on
> the
> > development of PIE syllabic liquids in Slavic.
>
> Okay, this does not quite work then, unless it is a loan, on

which

> I am unable to say anything now.
>
>
> > Pokorny is not the latest news on PIE. *azU is no enigma at

all.

> It's the
> > expected Slavic development of PIE *h1eg^om.
>
> I am sure about the question marks on the etymology of the

word

> in Pokorny. I will look it up again. The question was not about
> the PIE form. The problem is the AzU looks very unusual
> compared with the forms in most Slavic languages. From

what I

> got from Pokorny, the development of the sounds is hard to
> explain historically. I did not need a PIE reconstruct of the

word.

>
>
> > > bulg. azbuka "alphabet", a compiled word from the names

of

> the first two
> > letters in Glagolic: azU, buki. The next two letters were called
> vedi,
> > glagoli. Buki is still a mystery even to me.
> >
> > OCS buky (gen. <bukUve>) is a loan from Germanic (same
> word as English
> > <book>). <ve^de^> and <glagolU> are Slavic words, of

course

> (so are <dobro>,
> > <jestU>, <z^ivite>, <3e^lo>, <zeml'a>, <iz^e>, <i>, <kako>, <
> l'udije>, etc.)
>
> Piotr, I am suggesting this could be mixed with Iranian, not that
> all OCS is Iranian. This would be a ridiculous statement. The
> word glagoli was put by Pokorny in the same column as the

Old

> Indian ghrghara (it meant "to speak in a... hoarse voice"? and,

as

> a noun, "noise"). Which I found interesting since there is a

word

> gargara in Bulgarian, which means something similar.

"Prjavja

> si gargara" means when you have a sore throat you take some
> water with salt or something else in your mouth and then

exhale

> against it (which gives out a gurgling sound of a sorts). I am

not

> assuming glagoli is Iranian. I just found it intriguing that we
> have, as it is usual in my language, two words which seem to
> have the same PIE root, while not stemming from the same
> families of languages (the /l/ could not be Iranian). And how
> does one explain a loan like gargara anyway - from a language
> that was supposedly so far away from Bulgarians. And it is not
> the only loan.
>
> Other examples: (non-Slavic / Slavic)
>
> hubav - krasiv "beautiful"
> kys - kratyk "short"
> kyshta - dom "home, house"
> pita - hljab "bread"
> obich - ljubov "love" (obich does not seem to have an Iranian
> parallel)
>
>
> Indeed, you find most of those strange words in Bulgarian if

you

> are very much into common language and dialectology. It is
> there that most of those "Iranian" words appear. As far as the
> standard language is concerned, non-Slavic seem to be many
> names of
>
> family members (bashta "father", chicho "uncle", lelja "aunt",
> kaka "older sister", bate/batko "older brother", sholjo "younger
> brother")
>
> customs (bulka "bride", koleda "Christmas", survakane -
> untranslatable, etc.)
>
> trees, animals and herbs (dzhodzhen "Minze", bilka "herb",
> badem "almond" etc)
>
> Or lots of other most common words like: mrUsen "dirty"
>
> And so on. I don't have it all in my mind, of course, and for

some

> of them I will need to look for an English translation.
>
> I assume Dobrev could be wrong about many Iranian parallels
> (he is not a linguist), yet if there are no convincing Turkic
> parallels for most of those words, aren't we supposed to look

for

> such somewhere and compile a list of which is what to see if a
> certain group of languages prevails? You can try to translate

the

> inscriptions using Chinese if you wish. Just if you can end up
> with a meaningful translation, I will be most interested to read

it.

> That's the whole point. We still don't have a meaningful
> explanation of a significant part of your vocabulary and

grammar.

> No Turkologist has offered a better version than the one

offered

> by our scholars. Or I don't know of such version.
>
> Eva