From: tgpedersen
Message: 55849
Date: 2008-03-24
>And how is that relevant.
> 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 it doesn't mean "king".
> > 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,Oh, nice. Care to give details?
> it's meant different things in the Germanic languages,
> though people ignorant of history don't always realize this.
>It does have an answer, apparently you don't like it?
> >> 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?