Re: Slavic borrowing < ?

From: stlatos
Message: 50857
Date: 2007-12-10

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-12-10 11:17, stlatos wrote:
>
> > I said _if_ it was IIr. _then_ it must be < Garutma:n. Nothing else
> > would fit. I think it's the most likely source.
> >
> > If we start with *garudma:n or *garuma:n then if the r in Slavic was
> > dif. than in whatever language it came from (direct or in-) then a tap
> > might be replaced by j.
> >
> > *garuma:n
> > *garuman
> > *gajuman
> > *gamajun
>
> Ignoring Slavic phonology altogether? If "gamajun" were a really old
> Slavic word, it would require something like *ga:ma:jaun- in the source
> language, otherwise we'd get *gomojInU from your sequence.

I haved no idea what you're objecting to. I'm not saying it's very
old _in Slavic_ at all. This would need to happen after a>o and a:>a
so the qual. not quant. mattered. Are you saying any kind of r in any
language could never be borrowed into another as j? Or that it had to
happen before ju>ji>jI? What's wrong with a borrowing at the same time
(or sim.) to Alkonost?

The Middle Indic form (or later) could have traveled by almost any
series of borrowings before reaching Slavic. I can't say exactly what
is was like immediately before borrowing or how the sounds _in that
language_ were heard by Slavs at the time.

> I suspect you
> can tailor the derivation accordingly, but that's the whole point. By
> manipulating the input arbitrarily anything can be derived out of
> anything else. Trubachëv derived it from *hu-maya-, for example,
> allowing himself as much formal leeway as you do.

To keep it simple, Slavic borrowed names of mythic birds, some names
are definitely borrowed, one may be: if it is, what could it be from?

That's all I've done; a famous bird in one branch could have been
the source of another famous bird in another branch.

From past experience, it seems you object to metathesis the most.
But the met. might not even have been Slavic. Later IIr. languages
outside of India often had many cases of met., many for no apparent
reason.


Just compare:

*kYaxpkó+ 'hoof' > *s^a:pka^z > khowàr sapùk; atsHArEtA` pAs^O`t.o

*pYaL-x-táx 'grey hair' ì 'here' > *patxLa:^ i > kh l.aypàt.s.i;
kAmvìri pAlì

*n,dhr.ó+s 'under' *pet!r.ó+s 'feather' > *unWra^z pat.s.ra^z 'wing' >
kv unrà pAt.ü`, kh wràzun

*pYì-pYL-x-t(ó)n.+ 'moth' > *pùLpin.xt. +ùk dim. > kh pulmund.ùk, kv
prüs^pùlik

*pn:,kWttí+s 'fist' > *muNks.t.i^z > atsH mùs.t.i, kv *mn.us.t.i > mRü`s^t


Most of these have multiple met. at the proto- and individual
language-stages. If, for example, *galuma:n existed in one of the
more western types and met. > *gamalun later, a borrowing into an
Alan-type might be *gamal'un and into Sl. with l' as j before back. A
simpler series might also be possible depending on timing and the
exact Slavic treatment of l' / l / L at a given stage. There are so
many possibilities, I can't be sure of any series as certain, but many
seem possible to me.

> > Again, you're assuming an unnecessary timing. The whole theory
> > requires a relatively recent loan.
>
> Just how recent? After the eighth century? What would any Goths be
doing
> in the area of Gdan'sk at that time?

I never said a direct Goth. > Sl. borrowing was needed. Any other
language in the area could have been an intermediary.