On 2007-12-10 11:17, stlatos wrote:
> 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
Ignoring Slavic phonology altogether? If "gamajun" were a really old
Slavic word, it would require something like *ga:ma:jaun- in the source
language, otherwise we'd get *gomojInU from your sequence. I suspect you
can tailor the derivation accordingly, but that's the whole point. By
manipulating the input arbitrarily anything can be derived out of
anything else. Trubachëv derived it from *hu-maya-, for example,
allowing himself as much formal leeway as you do. Actually the ending
-unU looks Slavic, and it's the gama(j)- part that needs explaining (if
the word is authentic and not a late invention of bestiary-compilers;
the Russian Wikipedia derives it from an onomatopoeic verb meaning 'to
tell fairy tales'). My own idea was that it had something to do with
IIr. ga:H(i)- 'sing' and/or Russ. gam 'noise'.
> Again, you're assuming an unnecessary timing. The whole theory
> requires a relatively recent loan.
Just how recent? After the eighth century? What would any Goths be doing
in the area of Gdan'sk at that time? Even the early Christian loans in
Polish, like kos'ciól/ < *kastel- (Lat. castellum) have /o/ for foreign
short /a/. And the objection to "Gothiskandza" as a settlement name has
not been answered. The whole theory is just fanciful.
Piotr