Re: [tied] Re: again Slavic "dragU"

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:31:02 +0200, alex
<alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>
>>> [AK]
>>> But, according to Derksen, which I haven't now at hand, it must be
>>> *do:rgU.
>>
>> But that isn't a PIE long /o:/ (otherwise Derksen would have
>> written *da:rgU or, I don't know, *da`rgU). It's a Slavic
>> /o/, from PIE short */o/. The metathesis in South Slavic and
>> Southern West-Slavic caused it to lengthen to /ro:/ => /ra/,
>> but Northern West Slavic and East Slavic clearly show that
>> it was /o/ (Pol. drogi, Russ. dorogoj).
>
>It shows clearly?

Yes.

>We know too there is in South Slavic "vlasi" for North
>Slavic "volohi" and that word is by no way the result of any Germanic word
>loaned into Slavic where /lo/ => /la/. I mean, the Germanic word ( if true)
>should have had there an "a" and the output IS in North-West Slavic an "o"
>and in South Slavic an "a".

Of course. Germanic walhaz > Slavic volxU. All short
vowels. Slavic /a/ was a long vowel at least until after
the time of metathesis.

>> Yes (there is a Latvian cognate, drags).

Typo. I meant dargs. And it should be da:rgs.


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