Re: [tied] *kuningaz

--- Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

> GK: And I thank you for your reflections==
> (Re emergence of Slavic):
>(ST) It depends.
> I'm inclined to support the theory of early
> Proto-Slavic being actually
> an aberrant West Baltic dialect. I've seen 500BC
> proposed as a date of
> East(Central)-West(Periferal) split. I also
> sympathize to the theory
> that it was some external impulse that triggered
> Slavic ethnic explosion
> and forced them to leave swamps and forests for
> something looking much
> like the culture of Roman provinces (*banja,
> *rusalIje/*rusalUka etc) --
> exctly what the Balts did not do. The Gothic
> 'activities' fit neatly as
> the impulse. Thus, the date in question would be
> somewhere between 500BC
> and 0AD.

*****GK: Your idea of an "aberrant" dialect sounds
promising. My take on the "impulse" which helped
create it (rather than the impulse which triggered the
later outmigrations) focuses on the arrival of
representatives of the "East Pomeranian" culture in
the 3rd c BC into the southernmost "Neurian" areas of
Old Scythia, creating a complex ethno-linguistic
interplay here <300BC-0 AD>(Germanic (prob.), Baltic,
"Scythian"). Somehow, "Slavs" are the ultimate product
of this. With the Zarubynets'ka culture as their first
archaeological expression.****

>
>(ST) Note,
> > however, that _if_
> > Lithuanian gu`das '1. Belarusian 2. (dialectal)
> > foreigner' is indeed a
> > Germanic borrowing, it must reflect pre-Grimm
> > Germanic (actually,
> > Proto-Germanic) form *gudas, so the borrowing must
> > have occured long
> > before 0 AD, which could point to rather early
> > Balto-Germanic contacts.
>
> *****GK: This is a tricky one. It seems that *gudas
> in
> the sense of "Slav of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania"
> is
> first attested in 1546. Pritsak has a theory that
> the
> word was coined in the 7th-8th c. when the ancestors
> of Lithuanians encountered the north-moving Slavs
> who
> had been part of the Gothic realm and kept this term
> ("Goth") as a self-designation. I find this quite
> implausible on historical grounds, and perhaps you
> would on linguistic ones. But if *gudas is not a
> Germanic borrowing (I find it difficult to imagine
> what Germanics would be doing in the area SE of
> Lithuania prior to 0 AD), what would be the
> alternative?*****
>
> (ST)The problem about this theory, as Piotr pointed

two

> years ago on this
> list, is that if the word were _borrowed_ (whether
> by the Slavs or the
> Balts) after ca. 0AD (a more precise date depends on
> the dating of
> Grimm's law) it would have taken the form *gUtU in
> Slavic and *gu`tas in
> Lithuanian.

****GK: The Herrmann article mentioned below argues,
for what it's worth, that the expected -t- was changed
to a -d- under the influence of "folk etymology".*****

>(ST) The only possible way to save that theory (which

is

> not Pritzak's and
> first occured in the 19th c.)

*****GK: Sorry. I should have said "reported by"
Pritsak. He took it from Eduard Herrmann's 1941
article.*****

(ST) is to suggest that the

> word was _borrowed_
> before 0AD (the proto-Goths being NW of today's
> Lithuania) and then
> _applied_ to the Slavs later.

*****GK: Frankly that one is not very convincing.****

>(ST) Baltic etymologies have been also proposed for

Lith.

> gu`das; the most
> plausible one explains it from onomatopoeic *gud-
> (cf. Lith. dial.
> guduo'ti 'speak unclear, murmur'

*****GK: So the "Gudai" are the Lithuanians' "Nimtsi"?
(:=)) Why not? Much more plausible than the wandering
from NW to SE*****



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com