Re: [tied] Kerl, ceorl

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:54:42 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that the Low German/Anglo-Saxon form is
>> reconstructed as e-grade *kerlaz and not jo-stem *karliaz?
>
>The absence of umlaut, I suppose. E.g. *karl-ja- would have yielded WS
>*cierl ~ *cyrl rather than <ceorl> (we do find <cyrlisc, -ie-, -io-,
>-i-> as varians of <ceorlisc>, but here the suffix is the source of umlaut).

Right, West Saxon.

So what is the reason the word was borrowed into Slavic as a
jo-stem (*korljI)?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...