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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> 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@...
>

I have nothing against your argumentation since we have indeed the form
"gânsac" as expected. Since the nasal could come just from Germanic and
Slavic, one has to share between the two posibilities. More plausible
appears to be the Slavic one due the historical perspective.
The problem was just with "gâsca" and "gâscan" which cannot be Slavic.

Alex