Re: _ser'ga_<_*ausahriggs

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

>
> On 2007-12-12 00:37, stlatos wrote:
>
> > The timing is important. It's not very likely that the borrowing
> > occurred before s>s.>x after u/etc. A long o: or O: could easily be
> > borrowed as u: after original o: > a:. It could be almost any time
> > before U/I > 0 (no in at end of syl., so in > eN).
>
> Proto-Slavic had *au from the merger of *au and *ou. It was later
> monophthongised to *u and is spelt as such in the traditional system of
> PSl. reconstruction (which is somewhat artificial and anachronistic).
> Anyway, any early loan with foreign *au would have Slavic *u.

I know that. I also know that a definitely early loan *kuningaz had
pal. > -iNg'- > -eNdz'- > OCS kUneNzI. Since there's no pal. in
usereNgU every aspect makes it appear to be a late loan (after Slavic
was splitting into dialects). The -s- not -z- makes it extremely
unlikely to be from Proto-Germanic. There's also the possible e<a
before i. It's unlikely Gothic au was pronounced au instead of O(:),
so I chose what I thought was the best description of a borrowing from
some Eastern Germanic dia. into at least one dia. of Slavic, not the
proto-language.