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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-12 15:47, george knysh wrote:
>
> > On a related but distinct issue: what is your take on
> > the "bell" word in Slavic? With some having initial
> > "z" and others "dz"?
>
> There is no possible way for Ukr. dzvin or Pol. dzwon to have

developed

> regularly out of anything Proto-Slavic. The only _normal_ sources

of the

> voiced affricate /dz/ are as folows: (1) the "Second

Palatalisation" of

> *g before *e^ from older *ai (but there's no *ai in the 'bell'

word; (2)

> the "Progressive Palatalisation" of *g after *i, *I or *IN

(impossible

> word-initially); (3) PSl. *dj plus a vowel, but there's no trace

of a

> vowel between the /dz/ and the /v/ either in the 'bell' word or in

any

> other member of this word-family. *zvonU, *zvIne^ti, *zvoniti,

*zvoNkU,

> *zveNkati are undoubtedly the original Slavic forms. The affricate

seems

> to have arisen in Ukrainian as an expressive variant, and the form

with

> <dzw-> spread into Polish, first as an eastern regionalism, about

the

> mid-16th century (Old Polish had <zwon>, <zwonic'> etc.). There

are some

> other words here and there that may be related to the Slavic ones,

esp.

> Albanian (Tosk) zë, (Geg) zâ 'voice' < *g^Hwono- (= *zvonU)
>
> Piotr
>

Important example for the following rule:

PIE *g^w, *g^Hw > PAlb/Dacian? *g^ > Alb z

Albanian (Tosk) zë, (Geg) zâ 'voice' < Late PAlb/Dacian g^ana or
g^wana < Early PAlb/Dacian? *dzwana < PIE *g^Hwono-


Note that the rule above is available in any context, not only in
the palatal one as is the case of the other Rule gW/+,gHW/+ >
PAlb/Dacian? *g^

To resume:
gW/+,gHW/+ > PAlb/Dacian? g^
kW/+ > PAlb/Dacian? c^
g^w,g^Hw > PAlb/Dacian? g^
k^w > PAlb/Dacian? c^


Marius