> From: Piotr Gasiorowski [mailto:gpiotr@...]
> It's a typical possessive toponym; the
> earliest recorded versions of the name suggest something like
> Warszewo
> or Warszowa (still Latinised as Varsovia), from the name
> Warsz, which I
> think is a hypocoristic form of (attested) Warcisl/aw, itself an
Old
> Mazovian reflex of *worti-slavU (etymologically = 'restore-fame'),
> without metathesis.
Interestingly, the traditional Lithuanian name for the city is
Várs^uva, which is percepted like a typical Baltic toponym made with
the (collective etc.) suffix -(u)va ~ -ava (for the variance, cf.,
eg., the vacillation (Lith.) Daugavà ~ (Latv.) Daugava in the name of
the same river) by a speaker of Lithuanian. Not that *wars'(u)wa: ~
*wars'awa: would make a helluva good sense in Baltic, but we still do
have OPuss. <warsus> 'lip' (probably continuing the same *wers-
'upper, outstanding' as Slavic *vIrxU and Lith. virs^us/Latv.
vìrsus, but with the "right" o-grade), so can a West Baltic
substratal thing be completely excluded?
Sergei