Re: Slavic borrowing < ?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

> What's wrong with a borrowing at the same
> time
> > (or sim.) to Alkonost?
>
> Pardon my intrusion, but couldn't alkonost have been borrowed from
> Greek, at least partly, in the written way, thus escaping regular
> phonetic changes? Cf. OCSl krIstU "cross" and Xristos "Christ" both
> being ultimately forms of Greek Xristos, but borrowed through the
> oral communication and writing respectively.

Sure, but the point I was trying to make was that borrowing a>o was
reg. at one point, then at a later time it wasn't. There's no need
for special exceptions or extra theorizing. The timing would depend
on stages like:


1 Slavic has o, a, o:, a: as separate phonemes.
Borrowings of o > o, a > a, etc.

2 a>o, o:>a:, au>u:, etc.
Borrowings of a > o (since no short a).

3 a: > a, etc.
Borrowings of a(:) > a, o(:) > o; length no longer phonemic.


These stages didn't have sharp boundaries; even dia. differences in
timing and preference of borrowing could have been important towards
the end of these stages.