> On 9/1/04 8:38 PM, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:with
> > Interestingly, the traditional Lithuanian name for the city is
> > Várs^uva, which is percepted like a typical Baltic toponym made
> > the (collective etc.) suffix -(u)va ~ -ava (for the variance,cf.,
> > eg., the vacillation (Lith.) Daugavà ~ (Latv.) Daugava in thename 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 westill do
> > have OPuss. <warsus> 'lip' (probably continuing the same *wers-or
> > '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?
> It's a priori less likely than a straightforward Polish (or, to be
> precise, Mazovian) etymology. Warsaw is not a particularly ancient
> historically outstanding place, as Polish towns go: the capital ofbecame
> Poland was moved there from Kraków in the early 17th century; it
> the capital town of the dukedom of Mazovia about two centuriesearlier;
> until that time it had been an inconspicuous little town that hadimportant)
> gradually absorbed several older (and not necessarily less
> settlements -- all with purely Slavic names, such as Jazdów,Kamion and
> Bródno. The name Warszowa goes back to the 13th century; themodern form
> Warszawa is very young (17th c.)PIE *wer-s- "rain" ?