From: tgpedersen
Message: 59287
Date: 2008-06-18
>What language is *kYoru-? PIE? PBSl?
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > > Whatever the origin, I can't believe in arguments that take
> > > *xorv- from 'horn' instead of related to *xorn- from PIE 'move
> > > (cattle)' > 'watch, protect (cattle)'.
>
> > I didn't get that?
> >
> >
> > Torsten
>
>
> As in:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > This is what Gol/a,b has to say in The origins of the Slavs about
> > the origin of the etnonym of the Croatians:
>
> > c.) The third traditional etymology proposes a Slavic origin of
> > the ethnicon. According to this hypothesis *XUrvaté // *Xorvaté is
> > related to Lith. arvúotas 'armored' ('geharnischt'), which in its
> > turn comes from árvas 'armor' ('Harnisch, Panzer, Rüstung'); so
> > *XUrvaté would mean 'the armored.' But there are serious formal
> > objections to this etymology. First, Lith. árvas does not
> > continue any *ks- which would result in Slavic x-, but rather
> > represents primary IE *k'orHwos, a substantivized adjective from
> > the IE stem *k'erH-u- 'horn,' and it has obvious correspondences
> > in II'. languages, for which see below (cf. here also Gr. kórus n.
> > 'helmet'; Fraenkel, 965, and Pokorny, 574).
> > In this connection the primary meaning of Lith. árvas would be
> > 'horn-armor,' a type of armor well-known to the ancient East
> > European peoples.
>
> etc.
>
> The Baltic and Slavic words, if related, bypass all the specific
> objections to a common origin from *kYoru-
> if from *s.er- 'move (cattle)' > 'watch, protect (cattle)',Same question.
> as in traditional *ser-Same question.
> with definite derivatives in Slavic thatTorsten
> supposedly inexplicably change s > x (or from compounds, etc.).
>
> The suggestion of 'horn armor' is unnecessary, since 'helmet'
> would have been the older meaning, extended in one branch, if the
> rest of the theory were correct. I don't believe it anyway.
>