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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> 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 have once for instance IE /or/ which yelded in North-West Slavic /ro/ and
in SouthSlavic /ra/. As example one can give:

IE *ghordh- > NWSl. "gorod"

> SSl . "grad"

Now we have once Germanic "al" > NWSl. > "lo" & SSl. "la" as per your
example in :
Gmc. *walhaz > "voloh" and "vlas"


Now, I take for control a loan from OCS into Romanian where the meaning
fits:

OCS "robota" -> Rom. "robot�" with the deriv. verb " a roboti"
OCS "rob" -> Rom. "rob"
OCS= SouthSlavic and it derived from IE *orbhos as German "arbeit" as well.

Why don't we have here the change of /or/>/ro:/>/ra/ ?

Alex