Re: [tied] Thracian place-names

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> george knysh wrote:
>
> > GK: Here there are two problems. According to
> > Abaiev, the Ossetian shift from "a" to "o" did not
> > occur until the 13th/14th century, and so he does
> not
> > think that the Slavic "Don" was an Ossetic
> borrowing,
> > since it existed earlier...
>
> Back to the original issue: the Ossetic shift of *an
> to /on/ is
> irrelevant here. If the source was Proto-Ossetic (or
> pre-Ossetic, or
> para-Ossetic) *dan, its short *a would still have
> been rendered as short
> *o in early Slavic, in accordance with the
> completely regular pattern of
> substitution in early loans. Of course the
> Proto-Iranian form was
> *da:nu-, but the loan wasn't taken from
> Proto-Iranian.

*****GK: I'm confident that Stryzhak, Trubachov et al.
know what they're talking about when they say that the
Iranic a in *dan- was still long at the beginning of
the 1rst millennium. And I know what I'm talking about
when speaking of proto-Slav/Iranic cultural and
linguistic contact at that time. You disagree. Fine
and dandy. That's not the first time we've disagreed
and it probably won't be the last.*****




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/