Re: [tied] german "sch"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] german "sch"


> There was no such change. What do you mean? Welsh vs. Vlach?
Slavic *x in this word represents Germanic /x/ in /walx-/
(early German Walh or Walch). The adjective Welsh contains the
Germanic suffix *-iska- (hence English -sh, German -sch as in
English, Deutsch, etc.). The original <-h> is no longer
pronounced, but in Old High German the word was still
<walhisc>.
>
> Piotr

[Moeller] aha. Also there was not a transformation but is the
same "x" in both languages. That sounds ok.
Now I get a interesting point. There is no record about "walh"
but it was "deducted", this word must have been there for
explaining the slavic word "vlah".. OK. If the germans should
have had walh why the same german have for the same folk an
anothere word in this case "walah"?I mean, this one is a word
which doesnt need to be "broken" in slavic like in the usualy
cases and the slavs whould have got the word "valah".Or do we
must assume that an "a" sincoped from walah and the slavs got
just valh from germanic? It sounds unlikly , but if I mistake,
I beg for explanation with the sincope of "a"
So I see the problem as fallow:
We have "the germanic" word and this is walah not walh.
If the slavs borowed it from germans they should have had it
today as valah .
But the slavs doesnt have this form so they did not got it
from germans.
Because of these reasons someone tought that the only
posibility is , there "must have been" in germanic an another
word and so was deducted the word "walh" word, from which one
the slavs got their valh and later due the normal slavic way,
vlah. True?