Re: [tied]Slavic *go~sI( it was Re: husk)

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:32:50 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>I am afraid the mention "of course Slavic" is
>not proved. The Bulgarian "g&sca" looks like a loan from Romanian,
>unless Slavic "o~" yelded "&" in Bulgarian.

As of course it did.

>You expect probably a loan into Rom. as the /a/ was stil /a/ and not an
>/o/; as control point one will think about the time as the /a/ was stil
>an /a/ the nasal element was not lost in Slavic, was it? Remember that
>in Rom. the nasal is still there if it was once in Slavic, thus an loan
>from any Slavic is excluded.

I'm unable to follow your "logic". If the word had been borrowed at the
time that Slavic /o/ was still /a/, it would have been Slavic *gansa:ku,
which would have given Rom. gânsac, precisely.

However, it's rather more likely that the word was borrowed when the Slavic
form was *g&~sak(&) (with a nasal vowel intermediate between Old Slavic
/o~/ and Bulgarian /&/), which would also have given Rom. gânsac.

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