Re: [tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:22:23 +0000, pielewe
<wrvermeer@...> wrote:

(I wanted to do a ß (Alt-Gr+s), but hit the wrong Alt button
(Alt+s=send).

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>On Slavic *dUbrI vel sim. I'd asked:
>
>> >By the way, how do you guys explain the coexistence of "I" (e.g.
>> >R. "debr'" or for that matter the Albanian toponym "Dibar")
>and "U"
>> >(e.g. Czech debr^) in the first syllable?
>
>Then Miguel wrote:
>
>> That looks like yer-Umlaut.
>
>
>But is it admissible to operate with yer-Umlaut outside OKS, e.g., to
>account for the "e" in R. "debr'"? (I shouldn't have mentioned
>Czech "debr^" here, which is neutral, cf. "den" 'day', and hence does
>not attest in favour of "U").

From my old Leiden copy of Braeuer's Sl. Sprachwissenschaft
(I. Lautlehre), which I have to piece together every time I
use it:

"Außerhalb des Altkirchenslavischen finden sic nur
gelegentiche Beispiele eines Wechsels der reduzierten Vokale
untereinander. So etwa im Russsischen, wenn es zwischen 2
Dentalen zu einer Verhärtung kommt, wie ar. dUska statt
dIska < gr. dískos; ebenso ar. tInUkUjI > tUnUkyjI > tónkij
'dünn, schlank'. Umgekehrt is für r. dIbrI 'Schlucht'
unrsprünglich *dUbrI anzusetzen wegen p. debrz. Hier könnte
nach Formen wie Gen. *dUbri > dIbri eine Veränderung erfolgt
sein [the plural seems more likely --mcv]. Auch in anderen
Sprachen finden sich gelegentlich Fälle, die sich so
erklären lassen [no further examples given --mcv]."

>As a matter of fact, judging both by the OCS evidence and by the
>extra-OCS examples in Vasmer (not to speak of "Dibar") the evidence
>appears to be pretty heavily weighted in favour of "I".

That's why I initially thought that a different etymology
might be involved. But I can see no other candidate than
*dhub-, which of course fits fine semantically.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...