Re: Res: [tied] Re: Latin tempus

oh, I see. Please note that what I wrote, this was just an observation
and to me it looks like these words are Germanic words which got
borrowed into Slavic. So far I know, the change of intervocalic "u" to
"v" in Slavic is pretty late but I guess I better to let someone who
understands more about Slavic and Germanic to show to which group these
words really belong to.

best regarsd

Alexandru MOeller



Anatoly Guzaev schrieb:

>
>
> I'm not sure if I understood you well. Last time you wrote that
> "German(ic) forms appear to be older" (than Slavic?), because Germanic
> /u/ mutated to /v/ in Slavic. My opinion is that the mentioned sound
> changes had been occurring the other way round: from the voiced bilabial
> plosiv /b/ to voiceless /v/ and finally to vowel /u/ or diphthong /au/
> (cf. Eng stave and Ger Stau, Stab). English /stalk/ seems to be closely
> related to PSlavic /*stьblo/ (Russ /стебель/, Cz /stéblo/, SC
> /stabljika/ 'stalk'; / *h // ə // bl-h/n- /).
>
> To: cybalist@... s.com
> From: alxmoeller@... de
> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:03:47 +0200
> Subject: Re: Res: [tied] Re: Latin tempus
>
>
> I actually don't mean that way since "older" as word shouldn't be very,
> very proper here. Yet, it should be possible to recognise if these
> words shows a development from IE to germanic or to slavic without any
> ambiguity, for knowing the direction of borrowing.
>
> best regards
>
> Alexandru Moeller
>
>
>
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign
> up now. <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
>