Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> Nope. Apart from vowel-quantity problems (/ku:nas/ vs. /kunigas/) and
> implausible semantic derivation ('king' from 'body'?), we have Lith.
> <kunigas>, not "kuningas", suggesting a Mediaeval borrowing from West
> Germanic (cf. OHG kunig etc.), thus less archaic than Finn. kuningas
> (which is to all intents and purposes a spectacular loan from
> Proto-Germanic) or even Slavic *kUne~dzI < *kuninga- (presumably from
> East Germanic). All these non-Germanic examples show that the Germanic
> 'king/ruler' word was easily borrowable (as was later Slavic *korlj-
> [from Charlemagne's name] --> Rom. crai, Hung. király).
>
> Piotr
Piotr, can it be that this Slavic *kUne~dzI is the one who is the basis
of later "knezU"> Rom. "cneaz"?
But if this is a Germanic loan then the "dz" is just an ordinary
palatalisation in Slavic, isn't it?
I wonder in fact about how stared some other words remained. For
instance, Marius mentionated in a previous mail SerboCRoatian "ploska"
which is a loan from Germanic *flaska ; but what a loan !!! in the time
as the "p" was stil "p" in Germanic and not "f". The question should be,
where have the Serbians lived togethere with Germans in that time?
I wonder because the word is in ROm. And Albanian with the same form
"ploska" but the presence of /o/ there was interpeted as being the
Slavic filter for the word.
BTW serbs.. is this a curiousity:
serb vs. Latin servus
slav vs Grk/Lt sklavus
just accidentaly denominations or should be something more there?
Alex