Re: Etymology of "Warsaw"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 9/6/04 1:11 PM, tgpedersen wrote:
>
>
> > But in that case, why 'Warszawa'? Why didn't it stay 'Warszowa'

with

> > a transparent-for-all suffix?
>
> Because the name <Warsz> was no longer much in use locally at the

time,

> and so the placename was not all that transparent. To quote a

similar

> case, the placename <Cze,stochowa> derives from the Old Polish

name

> <Cze,stoch>, but since the name is no longer used, people are not

aware

> of the derivation and "explain" <Cze,stochowa> as 'hides

frequently'

> (<cze,sto sie, chowa>, allegedly because of the surrounding

hills).

> That's what folk etymology is all about.
>
> In the 17th century the reflex of Old Polish lengthened /a:/ was
> pronounced /a/ by most of the nobility from all over Poland and
> Lithuania who had come to Warsaw with the royal court, but it was

an

> /o/-like vowel in the rural accents of that part of Mazovia. The
> "rustic" pronunciation /varsova/ for <Warszowa> was hypercorrected

to

> Warszawa. Let me repeat: it happened in the 17th century, _after_

Warsaw

> became the capital city of all Poland.
>

You mean the name 'Warszawa' is known in written sources from the
17th century on. What type of sources does it appear in first:
official or 'unofficial'/private?


Are there any other known cases of -owa > -awa in place names?



Torsten