--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ualarauans
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:40 AM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] =?iso-8859-1?q?
Re:_ser'ga_<_*ausahriggs=3F_(Was:_-leben/-lev/-l=F6v_and_-ung-_
(gothic_loanwords))?
>
> [...]
> > The only and minor problem with OCSl usereNgU < Go. *ausa-hriggs
> > that I can see is the e- from Gothic binding a- whereas we
should
> > expect o-, like in OCSl vinogradU < Go. weina-gards.
> ===========
> A.F
> The first major problem is : why u instead of aw.
> (Why not jaw or ju ?)
As it's been already said the monophthongization [au] > [u] both in
the inherited vocabulary and in loans into Common Slavic is quite
regular. In fact, the only [u] we have in OCSl is from earlier [au]
< PIE [au], [ou], whereas PIE [u] > OCSl [U] and PIE [û] > OCSl [y]
(also Piotr's post #50875). So, no problems here as far as I can see.
OCSl -av- (actually a+w) for Greek au- in proper names etc, if this
is what you mean here, is a scribal convention of the translators,
nothing to do with natural phonetic developments.
In Old Church Slavonic the prothetic j- before anlaut-u was not
regular, cf. parallel forms utro:jutro "morning",
uz^e:juz^e "already". East Slavic seemingly favored un-prothesized
forms, cf. ugU vs. OCSl jugU "south", unos^a vs. OCSl.
junos^a "youngster" etc.
> The next major one is why e instead of long a: < ah
The bindvowel a- is not long. The h- belongs to the next syllable
forming a cluster hr-.
> a third (minor ?) one is why eN instead of in
That's quite simple. Every in- before a consonant turns into nasal
(-eN-). In- would be impossible in this position. Examples are
plenty.
> And what about ruki law : awsa > awxa !?
Why not us^e- instead of use-, I'd ask. Something to think about.
> > OCSl shifts the stress upon reNg- (< -hriggs). (A.F : Why ?)
Old Church Slavonic manuscripts are accentuated, aping the Greek.
So, in most cases we know where the stress lay. Why it's on reNg-
here? Well, I don't know. Maybe the Slavs didn't perceive the word
as a compound. But why exactly they decided for reNg- and not for
u-? Maybe because the u- as a prefix (yes, I'm still sticking with
this idea) was usually unstressed. Or there was another reason. For
a seemingly unmotivated relocation of the stress in loans cf. Old
Rus' variagU with the stress on iag- < ON væringi with the stress
on the first syllable. Who knows why...
> > Unstressed u- gets interpreted as a prefix and is eventually
dropped. (A.F why should it be interpreted and then dropped ? This
is ad hoc !?)
Yes, it is ad hoc (let's face it). But I've got an excuse prepared.
This is the only way that I can think of to explain the loss of u-
in Russian ser'ga < Old Rus' useriagU. The two forms are attested on
different chronological stages and demonstrate identical semantics.
Hence I presume that most likely they are immediately connected
genetically.
> > The word becomes feminine (OCSl usereNgU is masc. (A.F : Why ?)
> > and Rus. ser'ga is fem.).
Nice question. I don't know. Maybe the reason was extra-linguistic?
Earrings as elements of womens' gear?
> A.F
> The sequence of changes required looks very long and lacks clear
reasons why it should have happened that way.
I agree to a certain extent.
> Such a long and complicated chain should have left a lot of
variants on the > road that we should be able to retrieve in
dialectal forms.
Sure. Unfortunately I'm not an expert in East Slavic dialects. Maybe
someone could help?
> Do you have them ?
> Sorry, but so far, it still looks like making a sturgeon jump
inside a bottle of vodka.
:-) Never drank vodka. To'eva hu.