Re: [tied] Vladimir

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [tied] Vladimir
>
>
> > --- Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> > > AFAIK, this (Proto-)Slavic name is usually
> reconstructed as *Voldime^rU
> >
> > *****GK: Why not *Vlod- ? With the second "o" a
> later addition? On Volodymyr's coins the name
> appears as either "Vladim(i,e)r" (the usual notion
> is that this is a Bulgarian/Macedonian form) or
> "Volodimer".*****
>
> Sergei gave the reconstructed Proto-Slavic form.
> PSl. *vold- is what underlies East Slavic <volod->,
> Polish/Sorbian <vlod->, and Czech/Slovak/South
> Slavic <vlad->. By the same token PSl. *gord-
> changed into <gorod->, <grod->, <grad->, and PSl.
> *melko into <moloko>, <mleko>, <mle^ko>. Those
> changes took place ca. AD 800.

******GK: Bear with me. I'm not too clear on this
process. The contention is that the proto form was
*vol- or *gor- or *mel-. Around 800 there would have
been a metathetic event in West and South Slavic, and
a "fuller voicing" in East Slavic? (except for
Pskovian as to milk et sim.) Why is this considered a
better solution than the view that the proto form was
*vl- *gr- and *ml- which was subsequently "full
voiced" only in East Slavic?******

>
> Piotr
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com