Re: [tied] Velesu/Volosu

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:57:45 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
>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".

Exactly. What other conclusion can be drawn from Germanic *walh-?

>> >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

The Slavs obviously borrowed it as an o-stem, which it may well have been
in Germanic as well. Gmc. *walhz, *walho:s, borrowed in Slavic as *volxU,
*volxoi.

>> 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

Which are derivatives of *walh-isk-. Apparently you did not pay attention
to i-Umlaut in Germanic either (*walhisk- > *wälh&sk- > *welsk-).

>> >Now it seems very curious the loan back into Germanic from Slavic.
>>
>> There's nothing curious about it.
>
>Isn't it? Wherefrom did the Germans the "walachen" form then ?

Presumably from the (South) Slavs. There is no wl- in German, so vlax >
wal(l)ach.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...