From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 24460
Date: 2003-07-13
----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Enclosed Places (was: The unexplained link between
Greek/Latin and Tamil)
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> ?
> >
> > In earliest Slavic the pronunciation of what we _spell_ *o was close
> > to [a] (this was in fact the original Balto-Slavic value of the
> > vowel). I wrote about that at length explaining liquid metathesis and
> > the etymology of <daltë> (check the archive if you don't remember the
> > details). The change of [a] > [o] is not as recent as you suggest, but
> > it probably swept through Slavic about AD 800 (only a very rough
> > dating can be suggested) as part of a more general qualitative "vowel
> > shift". If *[dalta] was borrowed as <daltë>/<daltã>, there's nothing
> > irregular about *[gardU] --> <gardh>/<gard>.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> This is a posiblity. Against this posiblity is the meaning. For a
> borrowing from Slavic, there are not semantical differences or
> semantical developments. As far I know there are not such deviation for
> borrowign from Slavic, the loaned words having the same meaning as in
> Slavic.If there is in Slavic the meaning "fence" then it can be a loan
> from Slavic. If not, then it is not. Do you have in Slavic the word
> "gardU"= fence? Not simmilars like " umgezeunte platz, stadt, usw usw.
> Simply, fence. Is it?
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>