Re: [tied] Velesu/Volosu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Velesu/Volosu


> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:20:21 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...>
wrote:
>
> Oh no, not again...
>
> >What seems strange to the celtic "volcae" is the rendering in German.
> >If the germans got the name from the celts, then this must have been
> >"*wolhai".
>
> Nope. In principle, /o/ was always a long vowel in Germanic. Celtic
short
> /o/ would have been borrowed as Germanic /a/. With the other changes
(/k/
> > /x/ ~ /h/, Germanic plural suffix), this would have resulted in
Germanic
> *walho:z (or *walhan(i)z).

1) you assume the Germanic knew the Volcae from the very ancient times
and they knew them before *k > h in germanic. Thus the "h" from "volcae"
should be very old in Germanic more older as the Latin loan "kaiser".
>
> >It is not easy to explain the rendering of "o" in "a" then in Slavic.
> >Normaly we have an "a" > "o" in slavic not "o"> "a".
>
> Which is exactly what we have: Germanic short /a/ gives Slavic short
/o/:
> Gmc. walh- > Common Slavic *wolx-. Subsequently, Slavic metathesis
turns
> this into wlox- (= Pol. wl/och-), wla:x- (= Cz/Svk/SSlav. vlax-),
wolox-
> (ESlav. wolox-).

You are going too easy from *walhan(i)z to simply root *walh-. If the
Germanic word has been indeed a denomination the slavs must have loaned
it as *wolhon(i)z; accepting the change of the suffix with a Slavic one,
then the form remain still *wolhoni and no *wolhi
>
> >More, later, the Slavs they have has to do with the Greeks/
Byzanitne,
> >they have been the South Slavs. They show this "a" there in the form
> >"vlasi" ( the "s" make too some trouble just trough South Slavic or
it
> >is eassy to explain?).
>
> Of course it's easy to explain. Apparently harder to remember... The
nom.
> masc. plural suffix -i (*-oi) causes 2nd. palatalization of /x/,
giving
> Common Slavic /s'/, which develops into /s/ in South and East Slavic.

I did not paid attention to the second palatalisation in Slavic.

>
> >The west and North slavs have "voloh". The Germans use "walach".
>
> No, the Germans have welsch "French, Italian", like the Dutch have
waals
> "French Belgian" and the English have Welsh "Welsh".

which are derivatives of *welsc, but not of *wolh. And this does not fit
with the volcae > wolh. From a *wolh in Germanic, how would you like to
get an *welsc ?

>
> >Now it seems very curious the loan back into Germanic from Slavic.
>
> There's nothing curious about it.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...


Isn't it? Wherefrom did the Germans the "walachen" form then ?

Alex