Re: [tied] Old Czech hpán vs. Modern Czech pan, pán

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:09:30 +0200, Petr Hrubis^
<hrubisp@...> wrote:

>Well, I like the second option, too. According to Vachek (in his
>Etymologický slovník jazyka c^eského, 1979, 3rd ed.) the OCz. forms hpán (m.;
>"lord, Mr."), hpaní (f.;"lady, Mrs."), hpanna (f.;"virgin, girl") were only
>a matter of fashion (like in hbratr "brother" or hvozd = ozd "a forest") due
>to some German influence;

Hbratr is interesting. Where and how is that attested?

>Lith. põnas, ponià were are Polish origin; fem.
>paní, *pan-Iji (= Gr. pótnia, Sans. pátni:) < *pot-n-iji:- (nomin. -i: > two
>syl. -Iji anal. after other cases);

I don't follow. The nominative is PIE *-ih2, which
regularly gives Slavic -i, Skt. -i: and Greek -ia. There is
no need for *-Iji, nor can it be analogical after the other
cases, which were acc. *-ih2m > -i:m, G. *-yáh2os > -yãs,
etc. (the vrki:s stems are a different matter: they go
*-ih2-s > *-i:s, *-ih2m > *-i:m/*-iym., *-ih2es > *-iyas
(*-iyes/*-iyos), etc., but the Slavic feminines in -i
clearly reflect the de:vi: type)

>pot-n- led to pon-n- where onn regularly
>gave o:n > an; then panU must have been created after the fem. (just as
>vdovec after vdova etc.). That is what Vachek claims.

Does he give other examples of a development -onn- > -an- ?

>According to Szemerényi, Syncope 337n, who agrees that paní << *potni: , it
>was orig. *poti-n-i:

I agree. I recently gave my derivation, which I can repeat
here:

masc. nom. **pá:t-in-z > *pót-y&n-z > *pótyo:n (= Toch.
petso; elsewhere replaced analogically after the acc. by
*pótis= Skt. pátis)

acc. *pá:t-in-m > *pót-y&n-m > *pótim (Skt. pátim)
gen. *pa:t-ín-âs > *pet-&y-ós > *pétyos (Skt. pátyur)
dat. *pa:t-ín-ai > *pet-&'y-i > *péty(e)i (Skt. pátye:)
ins. *pa:t-in-át > *pet-y&n-&'t > *pétineh1 (Skt. pátina:)

fem. *pá:t-in-ih2 > *pót-y&n-ih2 > *pótnih2

>Holub & Lyer in Struc^ný etymologický slovník jazyka c^eského, Prague 1978,
>2nd ed. insist on hpán < gUpan-
>
>Younger authors (Rejzek, c^eský etymologický slovník, 2001) doubts as far as
>Vachek's results are concerned saying "they are improbable", as forms with
>prepositions speak against prothetic h- : se (h)pánem (instr.sg.), ode
>(h)pána (gen.sg.) (whereas normal prepositional forms or od & s), i.e. hpán
>seems to be from *gUpanU, seen as a weakened variant of *z^upanU (see also
>z^upa).
>
>However, Vachek argues that ode hpána or se hpánem was just to make the
>pronun. easier, which I can accept as complex initial consonant clusters are
>often preceded by preps. ending in -e for the very same reasons.

But that means that the h- was real, not some kind of
orthographic embellishment.

>Moreover, it is true that z^upanU is often thought of as being a loan from
>an eastern source (see Avar zoapán, T-Tar. c^upan etc.).

So what's missing is an Eastern form *gupan that would
explain OCz. hpán.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...