Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was: Albanian (1)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> So would I if I had not seen the article by Trubac^ev where he
> analyses a number of funny Baltic words with /st/ corresponding to
> Slavic /s/ (and other Baltic /s^/). Some good examples are
> stìrna 'deer', tú:kstantis '1000' and OPr. parstian 'pig' opposed

to

> Sl. *sIrna, *tysoNti, Lith. par~s^as. Trubacev interprets this to
> mean that, when these words were borrowed from a prestage of Slavic
> into a prestage of Baltic they still had some occlusion left.

Does he mention Lith. <stum~bras>, Latv. dial. <stumbrs> 'aurochs'? A
borrowing from Slavic would neatly explain <st-> ([#zd-] would be
phonotactically impossible, I guess), but what about the vocalism?
Old Prussian and Thracian (if the Thracian word -- pace Alex -- is
not a fiction -- thus, eg., Vasmer) would point to original o-grade.
Does that mean that tautosyllabic /am/, /an/ were surfacing as [om],
[on] already in pre-Slavic (as they obviously were in Common Slavic)?

>OPr. parstian 'pig'

But see _Pru:su, kalbos etimilogijos z^odynas_, III, 344-345 for
other interpretation (Lith. dial. <par~s^is^c^ias> looks convincing).

Sergei