From: george knysh
Message: 37171
Date: 2005-04-14
> george knysh wrote:*****GK: Stryzhak, Trubachov, Lehr-Splawinski and many
>
> > GK: The second part of the hypothesis has to
> > overcome the "short a" problem. This does not
> exist if
> > one holds that the Slavs got the river name from
> the
> > Thrakoid population they assimilated in this area,
> and
> > with which they were immediate neighbours
> > earlier.
>
> There's no "short a" problem. In that part of NE
> Iranian *a: was
> shortened pretty early; it attracted stress and
> resisted elision because
> of its former length, but otherwise it was just
> short *a.
> Modern Ossetic, too.*****GK: We're not dealing with Modern Ossetic but
>****GK: My transcription error.Sorry.****
> > GK: Stryzhak and Bilets'kyj mention this view
> > (op. cit., p. 14-15) but feel that the expected
> > Hellenized version should have been *ouru. Cf.
> A.O.
> > Bilets'kyj, "Borysthenes--Danapris--Dnipro", in
> > Pytannja toponimiky i onomastyky, Kyiv: Akademija
> Nauk
> > URSR 1962, pp.54-61.
>
> *<ouaru> or *<ouoru>, more like,
> foreign [v] or [B] could*****GK: Whatever. This does not affect the main
> certainly be substituted by Gk. <b> (remember the
> Blakh- discussion?).
> (cf. Latin Danubius/Danuvius, or the hesitation
> between <x> and <g> for
> foreign [h] in Modern Russian). There were no strict
> rules, just
> individual scribes' preferences for a given
> graphemic representation of
> a foreign sound.