Re: Thuringen

--- In cybalist@..., "tarasovass" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > I think they actually substituted *-eu-, which was the closest
> thing to PGmc. -iu- (a falling diphthong), especially if the first
> element was rather high, as it seems to have been. The further
> development of *-eu- > *-jeu- > *-ju- took place within (still

Proto-)

> Slavic.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
> Thank you, Piotr -- a very elegant explanation, and it also answers

a

> question I've been asking to myself since I became aware of the
> etymology of the Slavic *tjudjI: how come that our ancestors

managed

> to render a falling diphthong by a rasing one?
>
> By the way, how would do you date the retraction of the Proto-

Slavic

> diphthongs? My tentative guess would be somewhere between 0 AD and
> 300 AD.
>
> Sergei

Krivichian was the language of Novgorod, right?

PIE *eu -> Old Norse jo, i-umlauted y.

Thus skjota, skytr "shoot, he shoots"

Swedish skjuta, skjuter
Danish skyde, skyder

Apparently Danish generalized the umlauted vowel, Swedish the un-
umlauted one. So we might guess that in South Norse (different from
standard Old Norse, which is Old Icelandic) we had

PIE *eu -> *ju, i-umlauted *y

The umlauted vowel survives in Da, Sw <tysk> "German", older <tydsk>
(umlauted from *þjuð-isk-?). No un-umlauted reflex of *þjuð-
survives. In Danish in general *ju -> *y except before /l/.

So the development of the diphthong might have taken place outside of
Slavic.

Torsten