Re: Taurisci and Przeworsk

At 8:16:49 PM on Sunday, March 23, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

[...]

>> PGmc. *kuningaz isn't 'king' as we normally understand
>> the word;

> Odd.

What's odd about it? Most people's picture of kings is
based on their roles in medieval and early modern
societies, when it isn't formed by literary ideals or
caricatures.

> How come it means "king" in all Germanic languages,
> but "prince" in the Slavic ones?

It doesn't mean 'prince' in all of the Slavic languages in
which it's found, and historically it's meant quite a
variety of things in the Slavic languages. For that matter,
it's meant different things in the Germanic languages,
though people ignorant of history don't always realize this.

>> as I understand it, it's closer to 'tribal chieftain',
>> with a bit of 'war leader' and 'priest' thrown in.

> Go back to watching TV.

Don't own one.

>> Vasmer glosses Old Slavic <kUnje,dzI> with Gk.
>> <he:gemó:n>, <árkho:n>, <basileús>, and <kóme:s>,
>> apparently citing something abbreviated 'Supr.'.

> And in which Slavic language does it mean "king" today?

Is that question supposed to have some point?

Brian