Re: [tied] Old Rus' of the many "nationes"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Old Rus' of the many "nationes"


> --- In cybalist@..., "Alexander Stolbov" <astolbov@...> wrote:
>
> > Do I understand you right:
> > to get problemless explanation of Slavic and Baltic (in this case
> already
> > Balto-Slavic) form of Dunaj we had to have as the PIE form not
> *da:nu but
> > *dau-n-:*dou-n- ?
>
> Exactly. Any of *da(:)u-n-:*do(:)u-n-*dHa(:)u-n-:*dHo(:)u-n- would
> fit (one can re-write it in laryngeals if he likes).
>
> > And what? Could Indo-Iranian, Celtic and other attested and
> recognized
> > reflexes of this stem be developed from *dau-n-:*dou-n- ? And from
> **daunu ?
>
> Of what stem?
> Please don't ask me on Iranian and especially Celtic. I'm waiting for
> the experts like Piotr and Chris to say something on that.
> I have a strong feeling we're arguing about something. About what,
> I'd like to know. You state Slavic *dunajI/dunavU and Baltic *du(:)na
> (:)j(u/a)- are not only PIE legacy, but also cognates of the form(s)
> underlying Latin Da:nuuius etc? I state I can't come up with a
> plausible scenario leading from something PIE to the forms attested.
> If you can, tell us.


"You state ..."
I'd like to be able to state anything in linguistics...
I can only compare linguistic and extralinguistic data.
So I just ask professionals in linguistics to clear up some questions,
and I appreciate information you and other list members provide me.

Alexander