The common Slavic word for "fish", "ryba" has no clear etymology, and is not
related to other IE terms for "fish". But what with the other IE names? Did
they fall into disuse completely?
Engl. "fish" is related to Latin piscis, Middle Irish iasc "fish". There
exists a Slavic word that resembles the Gmc-Italo-Celtic term. For example,
"piskorz" in Polish means "loach, thunderfish, Misgurnus or Cobitis" (see
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piskorzowate for a photo if interested).
However, as many etymologists believe, the term is not related to the
English name for fish. Instead, it is a derivate from "pisk" = "squeak,
squeal, peep" (Misgurnus is believed to peep when pull out of water).
However, the supposed absence of relation between Polish "piskorz" and
English "fish" (as well as Lat. "piscis") would be true if:
1) all related Slavic words meant "Misgurnus",
2) the word "pisk" was onomatopoeic and created only in Slavic, or
3) the Gmc.-Italo-Celtic word was not related with a word for "peep".
The first is not true, for example (after Vasmer) Slovene "piskor" mean
"lamprey, Lampetra" which does not peep, Serbo-Croat "piskor" = "Muraena",
etc. Of course the original meaning could be "Misgurnus", but did it have
to?
The second is false either. Even if the word is onomatopoeic, it does not
mean that it was created only when the Slavic community originated. Related
words are testified in Baltic, Indic, Latin, Greek (see Vasmer), so the word
may be part of the IE heredity (< *pi-).
Greek "pipos" means "young bird". Should we believe that the
Gmc.-Italo-Celtic word for "fish" is NOT related with that IE "pi-? Why?
In other words, I see no obstacles to believe that Latin "piscis", English
"fish" and (the root of) Polish "piskorz" are all related, perhaps even
directly. At the same time, all these words can be based on IE *pi- "peep,
squeak".
(As Slavic *piskor- must have had long "i:" in the root syllable, its
relation to Latin or English term may be considered doubtful. But the root
vocalism of *pi- is not very stable, for example Latin knows both pipa:re
and pi:pila:re < *pi-, *pi:-, *pei-, so it is not a serious problem. In
addition, the formation of Gmc. *fisk-a- is not identical as Latin *pisk-i-)
See also
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/ie/piet&text_number=+856&root=config,
in spite of Vasmer's thesis.
==================
It is also believed that in Slavic there are no traces of words related to
Greek ikhthy:s and Lithuanian z^uvis < IE *dhg^huH-. However, there exists a
"dark" word, often reconstructed as *zveno ~ *zvono for Common Slavic, which
has the meaning "a slice of fish", and some other meanings in some Slavic
languages, including "part of something, rim of a wheel, hoop, band, circle,
ring" (see also Russ. pozvonoc^nik "backbone").
I see no real semantic troubles to link this dark Slavic word with Greek and
Baltic name for "fish". But, because of the reconstructed laryngeal for the
IE protoform, the reconstruction *zUveno ~ *zUvono (U = hard yer from short
"u") would be expected rather for Slavic.
AFAIK, the only (!) reason for reconstructing no yer is the testimony of the
extinct Polabian language which, as they say, preserved yers in the first
syllable (ex. mAre < *mIretI "he/she/it dies/is dying"). Polabian really has
"zvenü" (with the hoop-like meaning). But is the testimony so certain
indeed?
We should consider two things.
1) Is the word for "rim of a wheel" the same word as the one for "slice of
fish"? Interesting, Vasmer does not know the Polish meaning "slice of fish"
(while I do not know the (quoted by him) Polish meaning "rim of a wheel"
even I am a Polish native). Ban'kowski in his etymological dictionary (who
is, as a rule, less reliable than other authors, but not here for sure) also
quotes examples for the Polish meaning "slice of fish" only, and
reconstructs the original Slavic meaning "a segment of fish scheleton", and
I think he may be right.
2) Even if Polish "dzwono" = "slice of fish" and Polabian "zvenü" = "rim of
a wheel" are really cognates (ex. "slice of fish" > "slice, segment,
(vertebra), part of sth." > "segment of rim" > "rim"), I wonder if the
Polabian evidence for no yers here is so reliable and deciding.
[Polish zv > dzw is a young process, much younger than the loss of yers,
cause some forms with zw- were still in use in 15th, and even in 16th
century]
But sometimes yers in 1st syllable disappear in Polabian! See ex. Polabian
dvemE < *dUve^ma "two, Dative", celE < *bUc^ela "bee", cerE < *vIc^era
"yesterday". Then, why not "zvenü" < *zUveno ?
Does anybody know any other arguments that Polish "dzwono" = "slice of
fish", Russian "zveno" etc. cannot be derivatives of IE *dhg^huH- "fish"?
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html