Re: Sandomierz

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> 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?

from an earlier post:
'The name is actually a possessive form of the once popular personal
name <Se,domir> (*soNdo-mirU), like Kazimierz <-- Kazimir, etc. In Old
Polish (and still dialectally) <e,> = [aN], hence Latinised
<Sandomiria>. The first element is *soNdU 'judgement'.'

And now it's -mirjI?

> > 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,

quote again:
'1007 vU Sanu, vozle^ SanU, v sjanu, sjana, 1152 na SanU, re^ku SanU,
k Sanovi, nad SanomU, po sjanu, do Sjanu, 1249 re^ky Sjanu, re^ce^
Sjanu, 1287 sjana, 1676 San, 1375 San, 1377 Szan.'

What's the -ja-'s from, if not from -e,-?

> or for the reading of any of its Polish variants as *sia,n (or the
> like).

No *sia,n anywhere in that article. You must mean *sje,n? If they not
East Slavic, but Polish, there's no -e,- > -ja-, -a,- > -ju-, right?
But how would you then explain those forms with -ja-?

> 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)>.

Oh? Where J. Rieger then pick up those forms quoted above?

> No palatality is indicated in Polish sources of any age, and in
> Ukrainian the /s'/ seems to be late and secondary.

1007 is late? Compared to what?

> All that makes *seNdnU entirely fictitious.

Something here is fictitious alright.

> The most likely original form of the name is just *sanU, sans
> embellissement.

Unfortunately, it seems the scribes weren't aware of that.

> 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.

You mean 'the satisfied river'? That can't be later than 1917.

How about *(bh)s-ánd-/*(bh)s-énd- "sandy river"?


Torsten