Re: Taurisci and Przeworsk

At 4:35:06 AM on Monday, March 24, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

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

[...]

>>> 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.

> But it doesn't mean "king".

It has meant pretty nearly what *kuningaz meant.

>> For that matter, it's meant different things in the
>> Germanic languages, though people ignorant of history
>> don't always realize this.

> Oh, nice. Care to give details?

An Early Modern European divine right king hadn't much
resemblance to an Anglo-Saxon cyning, let alone a *kuningaz.

>>>> 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?

> It does have an answer, apparently you don't like it?

I neither like nor dislike it; I simply don't consider it of
any importance. Do you really think that the various modern
meanings are more relevant to the issue at hand than the
older meanings? If not, why are you harping on them?

Brian