On 9/6/04 1:11 PM, tgpedersen wrote:
> But in that case, why 'Warszawa'? Why didn't it stay 'Warszowa' with
> a transparent-for-all suffix?
Because the name <Warsz> was no longer much in use locally at the time,
and so the placename was not all that transparent. To quote a similar
case, the placename <Cze,stochowa> derives from the Old Polish name
<Cze,stoch>, but since the name is no longer used, people are not aware
of the derivation and "explain" <Cze,stochowa> as 'hides frequently'
(<cze,sto sie, chowa>, allegedly because of the surrounding hills).
That's what folk etymology is all about.
In the 17th century the reflex of Old Polish lengthened /a:/ was
pronounced /a/ by most of the nobility from all over Poland and
Lithuania who had come to Warsaw with the royal court, but it was an
/o/-like vowel in the rural accents of that part of Mazovia. The
"rustic" pronunciation /varsova/ for <Warszowa> was hypercorrected to
Warszawa. Let me repeat: it happened in the 17th century, _after_ Warsaw
became the capital city of all Poland.
Piotr