On 2008-11-12 13:48, tgpedersen wrote:
> If *sindhno- > San, then Sando-mierz get a logical explanation too.
What logical explanation? What is the -mierz < -mirjI part supposed to mean?
> Note that Udolph is having problems with an -e-/-a- alternation here too.
Udolph's etymology of <San> has been demolished in more recent
literature. First of all, there's no real basis for the reconstruction
of a nasal vowel or a *d in this name, or for the reading of any of its
Polish variants as *sia,n (or the like). Secondly, if the reconstruction
*seN(d)nU < *sindH-no-s were correct, Ukr. Sjan would have to be
regarded as more archaic than the Polish form; in fact, however, all the
attestations of the name in old texts (until the fifteenth century), in
both East Slavic and Polish sources, show <San(U)>, not <S'an(U)>. No
palatality is indicated in Polish sources of any age, and in Ukrainian
the /s'/ seems to be late and secondary. All that makes *seNdnU entirely
fictitious. The most likely original form of the name is just *sanU,
sans embellissement. The ultimate etymology is anybody's guess. _For
example_, it could be *sah2-no- 'full, strong', from the root *sah2(i)-
'make full, satiate' (cf. Istros < *h1ish2-ro-), or anything of the sort.
Piotr