Re: [tied] Danke - dzienkuje - any connection?

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

> On 2006-04-11 20:43, george knysh wrote:
>
> > GK: That's the Bruckner thesis (and others',
> incl.
> > J.B. Rudnyckyj in his "Etymological Dictionary of
> the
> > Ukr. language). I have some queries. (1)Why, if
> > Ukrainian "djakuju" is from Polish "dzenkuje", is
> > there a loss of the "z", esp. since Ukr. is not at
> all
> > averse to the "dz" sound, either at the beginning
> or
> > within words? The denazalization of Gmc "dank-" to
> > "djak-" would be standard procedure.
>
> It isn't a loss of /z/ (the <z> in Pol. dzie,kuje,
> [sic] is just
> orthographic) but the substitution of Ukrainian
> palatalised /d'/ for the
> Polish _affricate_ /dz'/, based on a regular
> correspondence pattern
> between both languages (Pol. dz', ts' : Ukr. d', t'
> in
> palatality-preserving contexts, e.g. Pol. dziad :
> Ukr. did; Pol.
> cia,gna,c' : Ukr. tjahnuty).

*****GK: But the question was rather (in effect) why
Ukr. should have substituted palatalised d' for
affricate dz' in this context, since dzenk-/djak- is
not an inherited Common Slavic word, assuming the
regular correspondence universally applies in the
latter cases. What is the argument against a direct
borrowing from Gmc into Ukr.?*****

On a related but distinct issue: what is your take on
the "bell" word in Slavic? With some having initial
"z" and others "dz"?




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com