>But -t before plural -i beconmes -ci, right? And from from there, the
> On 2008-05-04 01:19, tgpedersen wrote:
> > Actually, I've thought of this explanation:
> > It is not the Germans that are called mute,
> > but the mutes are called Germans.
> > Or rather Nemeti, since that was the closest non-Slavic speaking
> > tribe to the Slavs at the time.
> > I was going to check first whether the "mute" word has a proper
> > etymology in Slavic, since I suspected it didn't. I haven't yet.
> Sorry, Torsten, if I burst your balloon, but the Slavic 'mute' word
> is *ne^mU, and the 'German(ic)' derivative is *ne^mIcI, not *nemetU
> (or the like). The suffix just can't be earlier (or even borrowed)
> *-eto-; apart from problems with the vowel, *t is never palatalised
> to *c except dialectally (West Slavic) in combination with *-tj-,
> but that would have given Russian c^, OCS *s^t, etc.
> It must be just what it seems to be, *-IcI < *-iko- (affected by theSo much more pressure to regularize by back-forming.
> progressive palatalisation of *k).
> Deadjectival nouns in *-iko- are highly producttive in Slavic, cf.
> *starIcI 'old man' from *starU, etc.
> As for *ne^mU, there are twoWell compare DEO
> etymologies around: from BSl. *me:mas 'mute, stammering' (Latv.
> me:ms 'mute') with dissimilation, of *ne- + some form of *h1em-
> 'take' in the sense 'comprehend' (frequent in Slavic), which would
> make 'incomprehensible' rather than 'mute' the original meaning of
> *ne^mU -- which makes sense, given that the Germanic neighbours of
> the Slavs probably talked a lot if the number of loans is anything
> to go by.