From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 2251
Date: 2000-04-28
I don't know. Onsets such as *sl- and *kl- are often found as a kind of phonaesthetic signal in "mud/slime" vocabulary. The rivers in question are more likely muddy than glorious, and the homophony with 'fame' may be purely coincidental.I strongly disagree. First, phonaesthetic argument here is rather a way to explain everything = not to explain at all. Please note also, that:1. 'Muddy' is a rather inproper name for Dnepr or it's influents. The context of Словутичь in Слово о пълку Игоревѣ ('о Дънѣпре Словутичю...') excludes this 'CLoaca' semantic as well. I've seen Слуя rather long time ago, but I'm sure it's not muddy.2. Please note that Слуя (<*k'lowja:) is a FULL direct parallel to Šlavė (thus Šlavėnai, sorry for the typo), not only these magic onsets match. Cf. also Словутичь and Šlavanta, another Lithuanian river.BTW, I forgot to ask you what BSl forms you had in mind when you analysed *k'went- 'sacred' as *k'wet- 'bright' with a nasal infix. Surely the Balto-Slavic 'light, dawn, bright' words go back to *kweit-/*kwoit-/*kwit-, not *kwet. This *kweit- MAY be infixed, as in Lith švinta, but this is a different etymon from šventas 'sacred'. Amidst this confusion I began to have second thoughts about Šventoji. I know too little about Lithuanian dialects to assess the possibility that it may be a local development or deformation of earlier Švint-.'That's what happens when one writes in haste' (Piotr). :)My mistake. But I still think *k'went- and *k(')weit- are interrelated. As for dialectal change, it's possible as far as I can remember, and as a compensation I'll go to my old apartment and find Zinkevičius to provide you with exact information. BUT. Consider this:Šventakalnis (hill), Šventežeris (lake), Šventragis (small cape) and Šventaragis (definitely mentioned as a sacred place in Volyn' chronicle), Šventupė (river). Are they all 'bright' or dialectal?The stem švint- is not found in today's Lithuanian toponymy (according to registry database).Sergei.