[tied] Re: bg. nvEsta

I am not specialist in Slavic languages, even I know some of them in
high level, at most as my mother tongue, cause I have finished my
postdiplomic studies in Croatian. As far as I know, jat is just a
dialect characteristic. I never read nor hear any Serbian to say or
to write nevjesta. So we have ekavski forms (Serbian), jekavski
(Coatian).
It could be that forms with jat are much older in Slavic languages,
but I don't beleave that this fact was not known by Trubezkoy. In
Albanian, oll these forms are much recent, as are in PIE.

Regards,
Konushevci

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:17:37 +0000, Abdullah Konushevci
> <akonushevci@...> wrote:
>
> >Probabley You have right, but I can't understand why You don't
> >accept the simple fact that Slavic nov- must be derived from much
> >earlest form nev-< (cf. Greek neos). At least, basic vowel of PIE
> >was e.
>
> Of course I accept that. But PIE /eu/ becomes Slavic /ov/ in
> heterosyllabic position before non-front vowel (*newos > novU,
> *k^lewos > slovo), and /ov/ then spreads to the rest of the
paradigm
> (e.g. compar. nove^jI(s^), gen. slovese).
>
> >And in vesti we have nothing to do with saying something new,
> >like we have in "news" or in novosti. Why couldn't be vesti an
> >aphetic form of (ne)vesti?
>
> Because it's not vesti but ve^sti with a jat'.
>
> >I can't also understand why You and
> >others always avoid Alb. semantic cognat reja ( or much oldest
form
> >e reja) "the new one" or probabley Yout think that Slavic are
> >aliens. I have just cited an authority in linguistic as Trubezkoy
> >and I agree completley with here view. Could You or others at
least
> >give me just one another exmaple or cogant in other languages.
>
> There's also Irish nuachar "lover, spouse" (C.D. Buck: "cpd. of
nua-
> "new'; second part disputed perh. a vbl. n. to cuirim "place, put",
> the whole orig. "newly settled, newcomer (in the home)").
>
> The point is that there is no way to derive neve^sta from *newos.
A
> putative *new-is-ta: would have given *novIsta (*nevIsta if the
> semantic connection with "new" had been broken off early). A
compound
> like the Irish word above (*new-wed(h)-ta:?) would have given
Slavic
> *njuve(^)sta.
>
> In order to give another example or cognate in another language,
we'd
> first have to establish whether Slavic neve^sta is from *ne-wed(h)-
ta:
> ("not (yet) wedded": nubile girl, bride) or from *ne-woid-ta:, and
if
> the latter, if that is to be taken in a passive sense ("the unknown
> one") or in an active sense ("the unknowing one"). In the latter
> case, the word must originally have been "girl" [or
perhaps "virgin"
> if we interpret "to know" in the 'Biblical' sense] as is the case
with
> a number of other negative compounds denoting young people
(unknowing,
> unspeaking, unable), such as perhaps PIE *ne-pot-, or Lat. infans,
> Greek ne:pios, Pol. niemowle~, Irish no:diu (< *no-widio:n-), all
> "child, infant".
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...