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

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 30441
Date: 2004-02-01

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> > Does he [Trubac^ëv - JER] mention Lith. <stum~bras>, Latv. dial.
> <stumbrs> 'aurochs'?
>
> No, but I believe the word is precisely another instance of the
> observed Baltic rendition of a prestage of the Slavic sibilants
from
> palatals. Your point about the vocalism could even be used in
favour
> of the connection.

Thank you for the support (if I get you right). It would be
interesting to examine early borrowings from Slavic into Baltic and
other languages in that respect. Early borrowings from East Slavic in
Lithuanian seem to show /un/ in place of Slavic etymological *oN
(arch. <unguras> 'Hungarian' <*oNgUrU, <pùndas> 'pound' < *poNdU --
unfortunately, I can't recollect better examples), while Slavic *o
uniformely yields /a/ (all the early loans), but of course that can't
be easily projected back into, say, 500 BC - 1 AD. Vaillant (in
_Manuel du vieux slave_) suggests Late Common Slavic *oN to be
realized as [ouN] (and *o as [å]).

Sergei