Re: [tied] Re: -leben/-lev/-löv and -ung- (gothic loanwords)

I still have more than one problem with

Russian serga being from Gotic aus(ôn)-ring-

German has either Ohr- or Ohren- as compound form.

Equivalent to Gotic either aus- or ausôn-

Gotic from Streitberg : Ausô(-n) Neuter -N "Ohr"

so we can expect two forms :

*ausôn-ring or *aus-ring

As you can see, serga precisely exhibits

syllables and vowels that "nicely" fits in the holes

of Gotic potential words.

Gotic stress is expected on either aus- or ring-

precisely where Russian has nothing : no syllables at all.

the -eN- be it nasalized cannot the continuation of

either Gothic ôn or zero.

Nothing works.

I consider this derivation of serga from Gotic

as ***completely*** impossible on phonetic grounds.

Arnaud

----- Original Message -----

From: ualarauans

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:06 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: -leben/-lev/-löv and -ung- (gothic loanwords)

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@ ...> wrote:
>
> [http://www.fh. ug.gda.pl/ images/Czarnecki .pdf].
>
> I cannot see why these words should be specifically Gothic.
> They look germanic, but what makes them Gothic ?
>
> And some derivations are difficult to believe :
> Russian Serga from userjag from Ausa-hrigg(s) .
> Why should Russian lose the first syllabe ?
> Cf. U-kraina
> Uralic Mordve has a word :
> kirks circle, corona, a generic word for round objects.
> Serga can be the satem result of *kerg-
> Looks like a better candidate for a close link.
>

OCSl usere.gU/usere. dzI is attested ([e.] stands for nasalized [e]
here). Russian ser'ga is probably due to a re-analysis where u- was
interpreted as a prefix. Do we have examples of dropped prefix in
Slavic?

That this particular loan is exactly Gothic may be inferred from [s]
in the place of PGrm [z] which devoicing is a specific feature of
the Gothic phonetics (Go. ausô "ear" < PGrm *auzô). But since we
don't know much of other East Germanic dialects we can't be sure
that this devoicing wasn't their shared innovation after all.

Another Gothic loan in OCSl which keeps [z] where the Wulfilan shows
[s] is OCSl gonoziti translating Greek diaswzein < Go. *ga-nazjan,
Wulfilan ga-nasjan. This could be an evidence supporting the view
that the devoicing was an ongoing and unaccomplished process in
Gothic in the time of the contacts with the (proto-)Slavs, or that
it affected only the (would be) Wulfilan dialect or maybe something
else? Please correct me if I'm confusing things here.