Re: [tied] *kuningaz

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 12208
Date: 2002-01-31

Message
 
-----Original Message-----
From: george knysh [mailto:gknysh@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:16 AM
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tied] *kuningaz

So putting together the various points made by Piotr,
Miguel, and Sergei, would it be possible to conclude:
(a)That the Slavic forms cannot be derived from a
palatalization process occurring on the basis of the
proto-Germanic *kuningaz, but necessarily of some
LATER rendition (expected Gothic or early West
Germanic);
(b)That although Krivichian was basically not affected
by the 2nd palatalization, it DID accept the Common
Slavic rendition of the "king" word.

If these conclusions are adequate, some historical
inferences might be possible.
 
On (a). If by Slavic forms you mean East Slavic var'agU, *bur'agU, kUlb'agU, s^el'agU/s^c^Il'agU -- yes, in my opinion they must have been late (7th c. or later) borrowings from Scandinavian. If you mean king-words, they are a normal development of *kUnIngU, which is in turn borrowed most likely from Proto-Germanic.
On (b). It's probably my inadequate representation that confused you. Krivichian was absolutely not affected by the 2nd (regressive) palatalization, but it was the 3rd (progressive, since the palatalization feature moves forward from, say, /I/ to /g/) palatalization that changed *kUnIngU to *kUne,dzI. As I wrote, Krivichian _was_ affected by the 3rd palatalization, so there is nothing special about its kUn'azI*. The only characteristically Krivichian feature, as I guessed rather vaguely and tentatively, would be that the 3rd (progressive) palatalization ceased to operate rather early by some reasons, thus leaving Kriv. N.sg. var'age**, N.pl. var'age^*** (hence Standard Old Russian var'agU, var'azi) intact (not turning it to **var'azI).
 
Sergei
 
---------------------
*Kriv. 'soft'-o-stems N.sg. marker is (normal) -I
**Kriv. 'hard'-o-stems N.sg. marker is (aberrant) -e instead of -U
***Kriv. 'hard'-o-stems Pl.sg. marker is -e^ (and the preceding velar left unpalatalized) instead of -i (and 2nd palatalization of the preceding velar)