Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> [AK]
>> But, according to Derksen, which I haven't now at hand, it must be
>> *do:rgU.
>
> But that isn't a PIE long /o:/ (otherwise Derksen would have
> written *da:rgU or, I don't know, *da`rgU). It's a Slavic
> /o/, from PIE short */o/. The metathesis in South Slavic and
> Southern West-Slavic caused it to lengthen to /ro:/ => /ra/,
> but Northern West Slavic and East Slavic clearly show that
> it was /o/ (Pol. drogi, Russ. dorogoj).
It shows clearly? We know too there is in South Slavic "vlasi" for North
Slavic "volohi" and that word is by no way the result of any Germanic word
loaned into Slavic where /lo/ => /la/. I mean, the Germanic word ( if true)
should have had there an "a" and the output IS in North-West Slavic an "o"
and in South Slavic an "a". It seems that is everything else as clear since
for "vlas-/voloh" we are in another time as the time of PBSL and we have the
same output as in the times of PBSL. That should speak for how unclear the
demonstration is.
>
> Yes (there is a Latvian cognate, drags).
where Baltic should have followed the same way as South Slavic giving
"drags" from *dorgu with methatesis (as in all Slavic languages) and /ro:/
=> /ra / (as just in South Slavic only). That doesn't look too accurate.
To come back to my own sheeps, I don't think in a loan from Slavic of Rom.
"�ndr�gi" due missing exactly the very wide used "drug". No, the Rom.
"drug"[(crow)bar] has nothing to do with Slavic "drug" but it is considered
to be a loan from SerboCroatian "drug" with the same meaning. An another
"drug" in South Slavic.The same too for "drug�" (spindle) and "�ndruga" (to
gabble, to talk and talk; to stammer; to chatter). These are too from South
Slavic "druga" which shouldn't be related to PBSL *dorg- but they have a
similar output, at least in South Slavic. Everything clear? Certainly not,
at least not for me.
Alex