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

m_iacomi wrote:

> following stress); since they form a clear majority in the category of
> nouns ending in -Ccã, this is a strong indication for a Slavic origin.
> Romanian suffix -cã is not diminutive (a feminine diminutive is -ucã,
> still of Slavic origin) and our considered word, "gâscã", cannot be
> analyzed in Romanian as "gâs + -cã" since the root has no meaning. In
> Romanian, "gâscã" is just a simple noun, and "-cã" is not a suffix but
> a
> simple ending. On another hand, Slavic word is an analyzable
> diminutive
> *go~s-Uka- of a Proto-Slavic *go~sU- (Pokorny 615, you already saw the
> entry), thus indicating clearly it cannot be a loanword from another
> language (namely Romanian).
>
>
> Marius Iacomi

1) for the root:
I tried to analise it trough "hâs-" (<*gâs). The basis thoughts here
have been all the
onomatopea which are constructed after the same model like:
bâz-,fâs-, hâs-, pâs-, sâs-,hâs-, mâr-, hâr-,zâng-, zâz- ,
hâts-,bâj-,bâlb-, etc. all presenting there an "CâC"
I guess you can get the idea, should I develop?

2)for suffix: there is leoarca, zganca, brânca, nãpârca etc where "ca"
has nothing to do with the Slavic suffix even if there is an "Cca"

3) if this is a loan from any Slavic dialect, this should be a very
strange one since -so far I remember- there is an Slavic "Cru-" which
yelded Rom. "CâC"

Alex