--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> A note on OlIgU:
>
> If we start from ON Heiligr, the E Scandinavian monophthongisation
of [ei] yields /he:lig-/. Presumably the Slavs adopted that as */elIg-
/, dropping the initial h-, and if in they spoke an East
Slavic "ozero" dialect in which the contrast *e-/*o- became
neutralised in favour of o-, /olIg-/ was a natural transformation.
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: João Simões Lopes Filho
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Language - Area - Routes
>
>
> Gothic equivalents?
>
> ...
>
> Oleg (OlIgU) = Got *Hailigs (ON Heiligr) or *Hailiga (ON Helgi)
>
> ...
I was going to devote a special posting to Gothic vs. Old Norse
analysis later, but I comment this one name here to answer in time.
If I'm not mistaken, Gothic {ai} renders an *open* /e/. It's
that /open e/ that could yield o- in anlaut through normal
development (there's a minor problem even in that case, by the way:
clusters like eCI- are expected to retain original e, cf. *ez^I >
jez^I > joz^I, not *oz^I).
Old Norse /ei/ or East Scandinavian /e:/ should give East Slavic /e^/
rather than /e/ - it's phonetic implementation were mostly just that:
[ei]:[e:]:[ie] (except for Krivichian, but it's different topic to
disuss). One should expect Old Russian **E^lIgU, E^lIga > Russian
**Jeleg, Jelga - exactly what we don't have.
*Iggvars fits pefectly as well. I'm not sure about E Scandinavian
form, but if it cointains -n- (something like Ingv-) it should be
banned immediately - it had to yield Old Russian **E,gorI, Russ.
**JagorI - nonexistent forms. Besides, Old Russian IgorI and IngUvarI
were consistently treated as being different (one prince of the same
family at the same time could bear the name of IgorI, while another -
IngUvarI). Two different sources?
Sergei