> *tIrnU (> OCS trUnU) is a common Slavic word. Cf. OPol. tarn,
Mod.Pol.
> ciern' (from the collective *tIrnIje). As for the "dropping of the
> r-sonance", there are some earlier postings in the archive on
the
> development of PIE syllabic liquids in Slavic.
Okay, this does not quite work then, unless it is a loan, on which
I am unable to say anything now.
> Pokorny is not the latest news on PIE. *azU is no enigma at all.
It's the
> expected Slavic development of PIE *h1eg^om.
I am sure about the question marks on the etymology of the word
in Pokorny. I will look it up again. The question was not about
the PIE form. The problem is the AzU looks very unusual
compared with the forms in most Slavic languages. From what I
got from Pokorny, the development of the sounds is hard to
explain historically. I did not need a PIE reconstruct of the word.
> > bulg. azbuka "alphabet", a compiled word from the names of
the first two
> letters in Glagolic: azU, buki. The next two letters were called
vedi,
> glagoli. Buki is still a mystery even to me.
>
> OCS buky (gen. <bukUve>) is a loan from Germanic (same
word as English
> <book>). <ve^de^> and <glagolU> are Slavic words, of course
(so are <dobro>,
> <jestU>, <z^ivite>, <3e^lo>, <zeml'a>, <iz^e>, <i>, <kako>, <
l'udije>, etc.)
Piotr, I am suggesting this could be mixed with Iranian, not that
all OCS is Iranian. This would be a ridiculous statement. The
word glagoli was put by Pokorny in the same column as the Old
Indian ghrghara (it meant "to speak in a... hoarse voice"? and, as
a noun, "noise"). Which I found interesting since there is a word
gargara in Bulgarian, which means something similar. "Prjavja
si gargara" means when you have a sore throat you take some
water with salt or something else in your mouth and then exhale
against it (which gives out a gurgling sound of a sorts). I am not
assuming glagoli is Iranian. I just found it intriguing that we
have, as it is usual in my language, two words which seem to
have the same PIE root, while not stemming from the same
families of languages (the /l/ could not be Iranian). And how
does one explain a loan like gargara anyway - from a language
that was supposedly so far away from Bulgarians. And it is not
the only loan.
Other examples: (non-Slavic / Slavic)
hubav - krasiv "beautiful"
kys - kratyk "short"
kyshta - dom "home, house"
pita - hljab "bread"
obich - ljubov "love" (obich does not seem to have an Iranian
parallel)
Indeed, you find most of those strange words in Bulgarian if you
are very much into common language and dialectology. It is
there that most of those "Iranian" words appear. As far as the
standard language is concerned, non-Slavic seem to be many
names of
family members (bashta "father", chicho "uncle", lelja "aunt",
kaka "older sister", bate/batko "older brother", sholjo "younger
brother")
customs (bulka "bride", koleda "Christmas", survakane -
untranslatable, etc.)
trees, animals and herbs (dzhodzhen "Minze", bilka "herb",
badem "almond" etc)
Or lots of other most common words like: mrUsen "dirty"
And so on. I don't have it all in my mind, of course, and for some
of them I will need to look for an English translation.
I assume Dobrev could be wrong about many Iranian parallels
(he is not a linguist), yet if there are no convincing Turkic
parallels for most of those words, aren't we supposed to look for
such somewhere and compile a list of which is what to see if a
certain group of languages prevails? You can try to translate the
inscriptions using Chinese if you wish. Just if you can end up
with a meaningful translation, I will be most interested to read it.
That's the whole point. We still don't have a meaningful
explanation of a significant part of your vocabulary and grammar.
No Turkologist has offered a better version than the one offered
by our scholars. Or I don't know of such version.
Eva