_ser'ga_<_*ausahriggs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

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

wrote:

> >
> > On 2007-12-12 00:37, stlatos wrote:
> >
> > > The timing is important. It's not very likely that the

borrowing

> > > occurred before s>s.>x after u/etc. A long o: or O: could

easily be

> > > borrowed as u: after original o: > a:. It could be almost any

time

> > > before U/I > 0 (no in at end of syl., so in > eN).
> >
> > Proto-Slavic had *au from the merger of *au and *ou. It was later
> > monophthongised to *u and is spelt as such in the traditional

system of

> > PSl. reconstruction (which is somewhat artificial and

anachronistic).

> > Anyway, any early loan with foreign *au would have Slavic *u.
>
> I know that. I also know that a definitely early loan

*kuningaz had

> pal. > -iNg'- > -eNdz'- > OCS kUneNzI. Since there's no pal. in
> usereNgU every aspect makes it appear to be a late loan (after

Slavic

> was splitting into dialects).

The form OCSl usereNdzI is attested along with usereNgU. Moreover,
in kUneNdzI the palatalization is due to a later levelling after the
forms of oblique cases. Normally there's no third palatalization
before –U- in OCSl, and the earliest form of the loan in Slavic was
of course *kUneNgU < PGrm *kuningaz, cf. OCSl
kUneNgyni "queen", "princess".

> The -s- not -z- makes it extremely
> unlikely to be from Proto-Germanic.

Yes, it is most likely from Gothic with its specific devoicing: Go.
ausô < PGrm *auzô.

> It's unlikely Gothic au was pronounced au instead of O(:),

Why is it so? The earliest pronunciation of Go. –au- was clearly
diphthongal, cf. Latin renderings of Gothic PNs Ausila (lit. "small
ear"), Austrovaldus, Audericus (Braune, Helm. 1952. P. 19). In
Visigothic, the diphthongs seem to have been intact much longer than
in Ostrogothic.