Re: [tied]Slavic *go~sI( it was Re: husk)

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 26535
Date: 2003-10-18

18-10-03 15:58, alex wrote:

> The problem was just with "gâsca" and "gâscan" which cannot be Slavic.

Au contraire, they can't be anything else _but_ Slavic. If it weren't
for your curious intellectual blindness, you would have drawn this
conclusion yourself from the facts presented to you so far. Here's the
argument again (for the last time):

The denasalisation of *o~ in most of South Slavic (giving high vowel
reflexes) accounts for the <â>. In fact, Bulg. g&ska and Rom. gâscã
sound almost the same. Miguel has already informed you that /&/ is the
normal development of the old nasal vowel in Bulgarian, and since the
word *go~sUka (diminutive of *go~sI) has reflexes in practically every
Slavic language, there is absolutely no ground for believing that the
Bulgarian word is not inherited. It's true that suffixes with -k- are
not uniquely Slavic, but it's also true that they are extremely
productive in Slavic. Please show me any non-Slavic language that has a
diminutive of the 'goose' word looking like <gVska>.

Piotr