From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36192
Date: 2005-02-09
>Why not? An ancient borrowing would give jupân, a more
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> why exactly *gUpan with "gU"?
>>
>> Because Czech /h/ comes from /g/, and the yer that follows
>> after /g/ must be /U/.
>
>or from "k" (are there several other posiblites?) I remember about
>"hrijovatka" (intersection)
>
>>
>>> I keep in mind the time frame where the change "an" > "1n" since the
>>> Rom. reflex of the word is "jup1n". The "ju" could be yelded out
>>> off "g^u" or "iu" but the Slavic "an" remains "an" in Rom. and does
>>> not become "ân".
>>
>> Except in old borrowings, like stãpân, jupân.
>>
>
>There are in fact just two words considered to be of Slavic origin which
>shows "ân" and you told them. "stãpân" and "jupân". For "jupân" one can
>say:
>
>1) there is the word "jupan" which is considered to be the Slavic
>"z^upanU". Paralel with this word is the word "jupân" which cannot be
>from the same word "z^upanU"
>, thus even DEX avoid to consider it fromIf Slavic /o/ was still /a/, then Slavic *stapa:nU could
>Slavic, but it gives "unknown etymology".
>
>2) for "stãpân" there was long time considered Slavic "stopanU" as being
>the etymon. The second problem beside "an" > "ân" is the change of
>Slavic "o" to Rom. "ã" which is not sustaining by anything. Thus, we
>have two phonetical problems which speaks against loaning it from
>Slavic. The same phonetical problems allow very well the loan from Rom.
>into Slavic since Rom. *stapanu could yeld very well Slavic *stopanU.