On 2008-12-02 13:29, tgpedersen wrote:
> If voj- is "warrior", and her- is "army", how can vojevoda and hertoga
> be "perfectly parallel" or one of them a loan translation?
Why the quotes? I merely said they were "not unlike" each other, not
perfectly parallel; nor did I claim that either of them was a loan
translation.
> Isn't *voje
> a collective, if it needs a singulative suffix?
No, it isn't, but singulars in *-inU were (and sometimes still are)
formed if the _plural_ acquires a collective meaning, denoting a social
group, a tribe, a country or the like (like OE Wealas [pl. of Wealh
'Celt'] > Wales). We still use group/ethnic names in -anin with plurals
in -ane, like Pol. Amerykanin 'American', dworzanin 'courtier' (pl.
Amerykanie, dworzanie)= the old type of *gordjaninU 'town-dweller',
*slove^ninU 'Slav' (pl. *gordjane, *slove^ne). In compounds, the bare
stem is used, not marked for categories like plurality or collectivity.
In Modern English a <toothbrush> is used for cleaning one's _teeth_
despite the absence of a plural marker in the initial member of the
compound.
Piotr