[tied] Re: Etymology of "Warsaw"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 9/4/04 12:59 PM, tgpedersen wrote:
>
>
> > It means "humidity" too.
>
> Not outstandingly humid either.

The Wisl\a has run dry?

>
> > If it is that root, then it's from a
> > language where *e > *a and after RUKI *s > *s^ (not *x as is
> > Slavic).
>
> RUKI *s becomes Slavic *x (in non-palatalising contexts) OR *s^

(in

> palatalising contexts). After some morphological levellings both
> consonants came to be commonly used as quasi-suffixes in Old

Polish

> hypocoristic names (such as Mil/osz from Milo-whatever or Stach ~
> Staszek from Stanisl/aw). Warch ~ Warsz ~ Warszek from Warcisl/aw

is an

> impeccable example of that. The ending -owa suggests VERY strongly

that

> the base of the derivative is in fact a(n early owner's) personal

name.

>
> > And if it isn't Slavic, there's no need to reject the
> > Baltic parallels. Temematic (except I forgot the rules of that
> > hypothetical substrate language)?
>
> Is there any archaeological or historical support for all these
> may-have-beens? As far as my knowledge goes, Warsaw's name is

hardly

> likely to be older than the 13th century.
>

But in that case, why 'Warszawa'? Why didn't it stay 'Warszowa' with
a transparent-for-all suffix? That alternation, and the one in
Daugava ~ Dauguva is reminiscent of the similar one in 'apa' ~
Latv 'upè' "water, river" and of Kuhn's ur/ar substrate language,
makes me suspicious that it is the 'apa' word or a derivative (cf
for semantics German 'Aue' "meadow"). In which case the *wers- part
would be substrate but that is also possible, cf Basque 'ur' "water".

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/wr.html


Torsten