Re: [cybalist] River names

----- Original Message -----

From: Sergejus Tarasovas

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 8:43 PM

Subject: RE: [cybalist] River names

Sergei wrote (re: the idea that sl- in river names is sound-symbolic):

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.

A good point. My suggestion was tentative and not really worth defending. The parallel formations are very convincing. Whether what they MEAN is 'famous, glorious'. Balto-Slavic 'glory' is a long-vowelled derivative of *k'leu- (*k'lo:w-a:), and the meaning is strongly suggestive of Indo-Iranian influence. The forms you quote look more directly deverbal, especially the transparently participial Словут- and Šlavant- < *k'lew-ont-. I prefer not to venture a detailed semantic interpretation without having a closer look at similar formations in other branches.

... 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).

I told you I can't assess the dialectal evidence. I accept they are most likely 'sacred'. (Of course *k'weit- without a nasal is well represented in Balto-Slavic hydronymy.) If a genetic relation between *k'went- and *k(')weit- is possible, it must be very deep, and inevitably somewhat speculative. Let me take them apart:

As for *k(')weit- (I understand the brackets mean that you include Slavic *cvět-, which is OK as far as I'm concerned), the final *t is a "determinative" alternating with other consonants (cf. English white, for instance, where t < Pre-Grimm *d). That is, the root is reconstructible as *k'wei- plus extensions.

In *k'went- the *n can't be an infix, since as the Iranian cognates demonstrate, the root is *k'wen- and the *t is suffixal: beside Avestan spənta- we have the comp. spən-yah- and the superl. spən-išta-, the abstract span-ah- (< *k'wenes-), etc., leading up to a verbal root (*k'wen-, cf. Latvian zero-grade svinu 'celebrate a holiday').

If a case is to be made for *k'wei- and *k'wen- being related, they must be analysed as *k'w-ei- and *k'w-en-respectively, i.e. as extended *k'eu-. There are possible cognates for that, e.g. Germanic *xiw-i- '(fine) shape, beauty, colour' (English hue), Sanskrit śoNa 'bright-red', and possibly the Tocharian 'sun' word (A koM, B kauM, though W. Winter interprets them differently). Is THIS kind of relation what you meant?

Piotr