--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Rader" <jrader@...> wrote:
> Does *(v)o- really account for the mass of divergent outcomes this
> prefix takes in the attested forms? I don't know about "leaves nothing
> unexplained".... How do you explain u-, vam-, va-, vU-, etc.?
It's *(v)o~-, in fact ([o~] = nasal [o]). It derives from the PIE
adverb/preposition *h1en 'in' > BSl. *en ~ *an. The Slavic forms can
be derived from *an, which developed two different Proto-Slavic
variants: "strong" *o~ found in compounds (with word-medial treatment
of the final nasal) and "weak" *U(n) used as a preposition or preverb
meaning 'in' (with word-final phonetics, the final *n being realised
only before a vowel, like a/an in English).
Any word-initial *U received an obligatory prothetic glide: *U > *vU
(it survives now even if the vowel has been lost, hence <v> 'in' in so
many Slavic languages). Initial *o~ could also receive such a
prothesis, but not in all early Slavic dialects, hence the regional
variation *o~/*vo~. The nasal vowel is still nasal in Polish, but it
gives various other reflexes elsewhere, e.g. /u/ in Russian, hence
Russ. upyr' (also locally in Polish dialects, hence <upiór> 'spectre,
ghost' beside archaic <wa,pierz> with the normal development of *o~).
It was still nasal in some South Slavic dialects at the time the now
international form <vampir->/<vampyr-> began to spread into non-Slavic
languages (Hungarian, German, etc.). <am> is merely a Latinised
orthographic rendering of the Slavic nasal vowel.
To sum up:
Compositional *an- > *o~- > vo~-/u-/va(~)-/vu- etc. (depending on the
dialect)
Preposition/preverb *an > *U(n) > *vU(n)- > v-/v&-/vn- (depending on
the phonetic context; "&" = any vowel that may descend from *U in a
given language, eg. Russ. o, Pol. e, Bulg. &).
Piotr