_ser'ga_<_*ausahriggs

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

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

> > 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 form OCSl usereNdzI is attested along with usereNgU. Moreover,
> in kUneNdzI the palatalization is due to a later levelling after the
> forms of oblique cases. Normally there's no third palatalization
> before –U- in OCSl, and the earliest form of the loan in Slavic was
> of course *kUneNgU < PGrm *kuningaz, cf. OCSl
> kUneNgyni "queen", "princess".

I think the only series of changes that explain the oddities of the
3rd pal. has [_final_ U>I after pal.] before [g'U/u > gU/u], etc.

The mixture in this particular word could be from pal. before new
front V in either the masculine or fem. variants (that is, what would
have been regular features of the paradigms at the time).

Of course, it's hard to prove any of this; I wouldn't use any one of
the points I mentioned to say it _must_ be late, but the mix of all
the things that could be late makes it more likely.

> > It's unlikely Gothic au was pronounced au instead of O(:),
>
> Why is it so? The earliest pronunciation of Go. –au- was clearly
> diphthongal, cf. Latin renderings of Gothic PNs Ausila (lit. "small
> ear"), Austrovaldus, Audericus (Braune, Helm. 1952. P. 19). In
> Visigothic, the diphthongs seem to have been intact much longer than
> in Ostrogothic.

The previous existence of au in Gothic is fine, but that's not the
only source for what was spelled au.

I'm just giving a standard description based on things like, I
think, spelling Pawlus / Pavlus as if au weren't pronounced a+u and
the spelling au representing sounds from earlier au / o / o:-V < au /
u / o:wV.

Of course, since the exact source of the loan isn't known, I can't
say that it wasn't pronounced au in the donor, but it still seems like
it was late enough that au>u: had already happened in Slavic. By
bringing the possibility of an unknown or poorly attested (in writing)
Eastern dialect, even the a>e before i could be explained as
early-but-unseen, however, I'm still most comfortable with a late loan.