Slavic borrowing < ? (was: -leben/-lev/-löv)

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

>
> On 2007-12-10 07:07, stlatos wrote:
>
> > You said Gamajun looked Indo-Iranian. If from anything there, it
> > must be from Garutma:n or a slightly dif. form depending on which
> > language it came from. That strains credibility much more.
>
> But I only said I wondered whether it wasn't IIr., and the inference
> that it "must" be Garutma:n (or anything like that) is yours, not mine.

I said _if_ it was IIr. _then_ it must be < Garutma:n. Nothing else
would fit. I think it's the most likely source.

If we start with *garudma:n or *garuma:n then if the r in Slavic was
dif. than in whatever language it came from (direct or in-) then a tap
might be replaced by j.

*garuma:n
*garuman
*gajuman
*gamajun

> > Depending on the timing, maybe just:
> >
> > *gutiskandjaz
>
> *-andi:z, more likely (Goth. andeis < *anDijaz), but it may not matter
> much, given *-arjI from what surfaces as <-areis> in Biblical Gothic.
>
> > *gUtIskandjU ... basic Sl-formating
> > *gUtIskand'U ... dj > d'
> > *gUtIskan'U .... no d' in Sl (all dj>dz^ earlier)
>
> In an early loan you would have *dj > *dz. Later, there always was a
> *d'. *-ndj- > *-nj- doesn't happen because *-dj- was never a problem.

Most of your objections deal with timing. I said "Depending on the
timing, maybe" and still believe it could work out like that.
However, another possibility:

an > oN, etc., so no final nasal in syl.

brw. *gutiskandjaz

adjust > *gUtIskanjU to avoid final nasal in syl.

etc.

> > *gUtan'IskU .... met. to put pal. C before I
> > *gtan'sk ....... weak yer > 0
> > *gdan'sk ....... C > +voice after C+v in syl.
>
> But voicing assimilation is invariably regressive in such new clusters,
> cf. *kUde^ > gdzie 'where', *stIblo > z'dz'bl/o, *dUska > OPol. cka,

etc.

But even if that were invariable, couldn't leveling of the paradigm
return g-?

> > That's only one case of met., to get n'I not n'U,
>
> 'U > 'I was an automatic adjustment rule in Slavic. You get it
> absolutely free, so the metathesis does require a leap of faith.

I'm not saying -njU > -n'I wouldn't have occurred later, just that
the word had met. before it could happen. The most relevant cause
might have been the existence of -tI- not -t'I- in the word. Instead
of two changes to two pal/unpal borders, maybe one met. fixed it.

> The further difficulty is the vowel /a/ in
> Polish (Slavic *a), which can't reflect short *a in the donor language.
> Germanic *a regularly becomes Slavic *o in loans.

Again, you're assuming an unnecessary timing. The whole theory
requires a relatively recent loan.