Re: [tied] Goths and OCS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Goths and OCS


Alex,

There are Romanian loans in Slavic languages, but it would be
untypical of such a loan to diffuse into _all_ of Slavic at an
early date (whereas Gothic loans typically show such a wide
distribution); Romanian loans are generally found in South
Slavic and the dialects of the Carpathian area (which took
them from Vlach colonists), and belong to a much later period
than *gard- > *gordU (borrowed before r-metathesis in Slavic),
*kaisa:r- > *ce^sarjI (before the monophthongisation of *ai
and the second palatalisation), etc. Remember that the Slavs
had been in contact with the East Germani much earlier than
they got anywhere near the Balkans. The geographical range of
Slavic was still relatively compact then, which explains the
ubiquity of Gothic loans. The standard view is therefore that
words like *stIklo 'glass', *gotovU 'ready', *xlaibU 'bread,
loaf', *kUnIng- > *kUne~dzI 'dux', or morphological elements
like *-arjI '-er' (Goth *-a:reis [-a:ri:s]) were borrowed
directly from East Germanic, and I see no evidence militating
against this. On the other hand _some_ Germanic loans in
Romanian may have come directly from Balkan Germanic,
independently of any Slavic medium. It is also certain that
the southern Slavs continued adopting Germanic loans while
already in the Balkans (this stratum of borrowings is
geographically more restricted and includes words like *bordy
'axe' or *smoky 'fig'). However, I have no idea why
Stefanescu-Dragane$ti should regard a Slavic intermediary as
improbable; au contraire, given the historical beckground, it
is _extremely_ probable.

Incidentally, Goth. bo:ka:reis means 'a scribe, scholar'
(exactly like OCS bukar'I), not 'to write' (while the meaning
of Rom. bucher 'swot' is highly specialised), and the second
letter of the Cyrillic alphabet was called <buky> in _Slavic_
(cf. Russian bukva 'letter'), ultimately from Germanic
*bo:ko:.

Piotr

[Moeller]
I just asked because this is not a simply link. This discution
of V. St . Draganesti has an another basis . And this one is
the latin words from gothic, from the Ulfila's Bible.
Draganesti considers that the latin words from vernacular
gothic could be get just in the nord of Danube. And we know
Ulfila translated the bible indeed, when the Goths were still
north of Dabune.
The whole point is that the bible of Ulfila is translated in
the normal way of speak of the goths , meaning they have had
already the corupted latin words in their language at the time
the bible was translated. And this latin words could be
brrowed ( in a such corrupted form and ath that time?) just
from the romanians.
So, the first conclusion of Draganesti is:
There are latin words in gothic where the goths got them from
romanians and there are gotic words which are in romanian ,
but considered to be loans from slavic languages.
As argument he brings the fact that both series of words ,
latin and so-called slavic, are in the same book. The Ulfila's
Bible.
And that is long time before the slavs appers in the region of
Romanians or in Balcans.
About the methathesis we spoked about. I forgot at that time
to put you the fallowing question:
Why romanian balta & dalta & gard= supposed frm slavic without
methathesis but romanian târg, târn= supposed from slavic with
methathesis?
This will mean the romanians got some before methathesis and
some with methathesis supposing a periodical contact with the
slavs, after and before the slavic methatesis.This is an
explanation for albanians words too .They are too laoned(?)
from slavic words with and without methathesis
But I do not see why should not be the slavs the people who
got the word from romanian and they apllied e v e r y w h e r
e, as it normaly in slavic is , this methathesis.
The historical background is that beside the germanic people
the getae were the directly neighbours of ancient slavs. So is
no wonder the words came without methatesis in proto-slav and
they evolued with the methathesis in the actual slavic
languages. This explanation seems more simple as this "here
and there" of contacts between slavs and romanians and
albanians, in a time with metathesis and in another time with
metathesis.. Beside the ancient Tergeste which is too without
methatesis.

About the gotic: bokarei= scribe.
Sorry, it is my fault .Draganesti use "bokareis= scribe" an
page 18 of his book and not "to write".
In romanian bucher = persons who just begin to learn the
alphabet, persons which learns something mechanicaly without
understanding what he learns.

About <bordy>:
as the slavs came in Balcan there are no goths anymore, but
gepidae. So it is not posible to exclude the fact they got
that word from gepidae, but too it is not excluded that they
got that word from romanian "bardã"