Re: *kuningaz

>
>
> 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)

Swedish has <konung> "king".
Does that mean
that the king word has a <-ing-/-ung-> suffix?
that <kuning-> should be analyzed *<kun-> + *<-ing->?

Torsten