--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> A terminus ante quem non of the Lestek name, if he is real, is the time period Gmc and Slavic cohabited.
>
> ****GK: Is Lestek as a personal name attested in Slavic languages
> other than Polish?
I don't know.
> If one argues that it only survived in Polish (a stretch) next
> question: is it attested in Baltic? If not, it would be the result
> of Germanic-Slavic contact posterior to the breakup of
> Baltoslavism. Most early borrowings from Germanic into Slavic are
> usually viewed as borrowings from Gothic, which would date them as
> not earlier than the time of the Chernyakhiv culture, in the
> 3rd/4th c. CE. Earlier Slavic/Germanic cohabitations are as yet
> undocumented.*****
That's where Gol/a,b places them. Perhaps you should get the whole
context (pp. 356-362). Note that he thinks the Veneti were Slavs,
plain and simple, a claim which leaves unexplained the occurrences of
that name in western Europe, which in turn leads to fantastic
accounts like those of S^avli and Bor (that all Veneti in Western
Europe were Slavs).
'A serious break with this tradition of treating the Germanic
loanwords in Slavic, the best expositions of which are by A. Stender-
Petersen (1927) and V. Kiparsky (1934), came with V. V. Martynov
(1963). Since Martynov has proposed and convincingly demonstrated new
points in the whole problem, I will use his data and suggestions
extensively, though critically.
As the very title of Martynov's book (Slavjano-germanskoe
leksic^eskoe vzaimodejstvie drevnejs^ej pory, 'Slavic-Germanic
lexical interaction of the oldest period') indicates, the author
clearly stresses the reciprocity of the lexical exchange between the
two linguistic groups, limiting his analysis of the pertinent
material to an older period on the Germanic side, i.e., to Proto-
Germanic (roughly before 100 A.D., i.e., before the Gothic period).
Not only does Martynov stress the reciprocity of the borrowings (the
relative chronology of the Germanic loanwords in Slavic has been
discussed and applied by other scholars, most convincingly by J.
Kuryl/owicz, 1951; 1958:245-35); but he also introduces the very
important distinction between proniknovenie and zaimstvovanie, i.e.,
'penetration' and 'borrowing.' Both represent the process of
borrowing in general terms and its results, known traditionally as
loanwords, but the socio- or ethno-linguistic conditions, the
mechanism of the process itself and the semantic aspects of the
borrowing are in both cases quite different. Penetration requires
bilingualism and close territorial contact between the two ethno-
linguistic groups involved (e.g., in a borderline zone, etc.);
borrowing does not require such conditions it may take place as a
result of trade and import, conducted by only a few individuals of a
foreign ethno-linguistic group. In the case of penetration, a word
usually encounters a synonym in the borrowing language with which it
necessarily collides, entailing a subsequent semantic differentiation
within the lexical pair. The result of this differentiation, which
may be limited to the emotional value of the words, is very often
indicative of the character of the social and cultural relations
between the two ethno-linguistic groups. No such concomitant process
and semantic change accompany a simple borrowing; here a foreign word
enters the given language along with a corresponding new object or
idea, introducing into its vocabulary a now formal and semantic
entity. The above distinction proposed by V. V. Martynov is of great
significance for the reconstruction of the cultural exchange between
the Teutons and the Slavs in the prehistorical epoch. Another
methodological improvement consistently applied by Martynov in the
discussion of the lexical exchange between Germanic and Slavic is the
gradation or quantification of the probability (plausibility) of each
individual Germanic loanword in Slavic and vice versa. The author
distinguished three degrees of probability: minimal, when a word can
he proven to be native (inherited from an earlier period) in the
giving language, whereas this cannot be proven for the receiving
language; maximal, when not only the phonetic evidence suggests the
native character of a word in the giving language, but it can also be
shown to represent an innovation characteristic of the giving
language on the basis of its whole derivational structure; and there
is a medium degree of probability, when the minimal degree exists,
and there are additionally some extralinguistic or indirect reasons
arguing for the direction of borrowing.
Now, after these introductory remarks and explanations we shall
review the words which can be considered Germanic loanwords in Slavic
(i.e., Proto-Slavic) with a greater or lesser degree of probability,
representing either cases of penetration or borrowing sensu stricto.
Besides this basic division I will also attempt to qualify them in
terms of their relative chronolgy, distinguishing older loanwords
from younger ones. The criterion for this distinction, as mentioned
above, was proposed by J. Kuryl/owicz on the basis of the Slavic
treatment of the Germanic accent:
"Les substantifs slaves empruntés au germanique reflètent deux
périodes différentes de l'accentuation slave:
1) L'accent germanique était immobile et fixé sur la syllable
initiale du mot. Le slave de l'époque antérieur à l'affaiblissement
des yers n'a pu conserver cette barytonèse constante du theme qu'en
lui conferant l'intonation rude. Les themes à tranche radicale
intonable reçoivent par consequent l'intonation rude. P. ex.:
R. bljúdo, plur. bljúda 'mets,' S-C blj`ùda < *biud-
R. buk, -a, -i, -ov 'hêtre,' S-C b`ùk < *bo:k-
R. chleb, -a, -y, -ov 'pain,' S-C hlj`èb < *hlaib-
R. líchva 'usure,' S-C l`ìhva < *li:hw-
R. luk, -a, -i, -ov 'oignon,' S-C l`ùk < *lauk-
R. stúpa 'pilon,' S-C st`ùpa < *stamp-
R. s^elóm 'heaume,' S-C s^lj`èm < *helm-
R. volóch 'Roumain,' S-C vl`àh < *walh-
L'immobilité des themes à tranche breve ne peut être effectuée que
par l'imposition de l'oxytonèse puisqu'il n'y avait pas, en slave, de
barytons immobiles à vocalisme bref. On a par consequent:
R. kotë´l, kotlá 'chaudron,' S-C kòtao, kòtla < *katil-
R. osël, oslá 'âne,' S-C òsao, òsla < *asil-
R. pop, -á 'prêtre,' S-C p`òp, pòpa < *pap-
R. post, -a 'jeûne,' S-C p`òst, pòsta (à côte de pôst) < *fast-
R. skot, -á 'betail,' S-C sk`òt, skòta < *skatt-
R. kot, -á 'chat' < *katt-
R. mec^I, mec^á 'glaive, épée,' slovène mèc^, méc^
2) Les substantifs germaniques à vocalisme long empruntés après
l'affaiblissement des yers et après la constitution de l'intonation
néorude, sont devenus oxytons en slave parce qu'entretemps, à cause
de l'abrègement des longues rudes, les barytons immobiles à vocalisme
long ont disparu de la langue. On trouve ainsi:
R. korólI, koroljá 'roi,' S-C krâlj, králja < *karl-
S-C l`ìjek, lijèka 'médecine' < *le:k-
S-C lûg, lúga 'cendre' < *laug-
R. pilá, acc. -ú 'scie,' S-C píla < *fi:l-
S-C skût, skúta 'ourlet, repli' < *skaut-
R. trubá, acc. -ú 'cheminée,' S-C trúba < *trumb-
R. vinó 'vin,' S-C víno < *wi:n-
La couche d'emprunts la plus récente semble constituée par les themes
accentués sur une voyelle radicale brève, p. ex. R. pétlja 'maille
etc.', S-C p`ètlja < *fetil-; R. smókva 'figue,' S-C sm`òkva <
*smakk-; R. subbóta, S-C súbota 'samedi' < *sambat-. Ces emprunts ont
été traités comme les formes slaves à accentuation néorude
(accentuation de la more prédésinentielle)."
(L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes, 1958:234-35)
Kuryl/owicz's ingenious hypothesis was verified and corroborrated by
V. Kiparsky (1958), who introduced some corrections and additions
provided by historical Russian material. He also attempted an
absolute chronology of the Germanic loanwords in Slavic. It looks as
follows:
1) Germanic loanwords that belong to Kuryl/owicz's category 1A (e.g.
tynU: Russ. fixed stress, S-C t`ìn, etc.) and 1B (e.g., popU: Russ.
end-stress, S-C p`òp, pòpa, etc.) come from the period extending from
the oldest Germanic-Slavic contacts to about 700 A.D. (sic!), i.e.,
to the time of the penetration of the oldest Christian concepts from
OHG into Slavic before the Moravian mission.
2) Germanic loanwords belonging to Kuryl/owicz's category 2 (e.g.,
*korl'I, Russ. koról', koroljá, S-C krâlj, králja, etc.) come from
the 8th-9th centuries.
The third group of Germanic loanwords, coming from a later period, is
irrelevant for us.
In Kiparsky's absolute chronology the first period seems to be too
extended and the second period too contracted. For example, it does
not make a clear distinction between the Gothic and Old High German
loanwords, suggesting that the first Christian terms penetrated
Slavic from Old High German, although there are serious grounds to
believe that the first Christian terms were borrowed by the Slavs
from the Goths (somewhere in Dacia?) quite early, i.e., probably in
the fifth century A D.15 This is the view of A. Stender-Petersen,
among others, who in his review of Kiparsky's book (1936:251) speaks
about a "got.-arianische Mission": here we could include the terms
*cIrky, krIstU, sotona. So it is highly probable that the
linguistically established first period of Germanic borrowings in
Slavic did not extend past the year 600 A.D. and represented mainly
Gothic elements (with some pre-Gothic words borrowed from Eastern
Proto-Germanic). The second period started with the year 600 A.D. and
represented either Old High German or the so called Balkan-Gothic
elements (the latter were questioned by Stender-Petersen).
But such a broad chronology provided by purely linguistic criteria
(i.e., accentual features) is not satisfactory from the historical
standpoint. A historian would like to know whether it is possible to
chronologize the loanwords of that first long period, which
encompasses seven centurion (!). There is no question that not only
Slavic (i.e., Proto-Slavic) but also Germanic, and especially Gothic,
experienced important phonemic changes during that period and the
regularities of phonemic substitution characteristic of Germanic-
Slavic lexical exchange were different in different segments of the
time of the contact. In this connection I shall quote one example. As
we know, primary (early) Proto-Slavic contained the diphthong /ou/
(from PIE ou \/ au), e.g., *ouxo > uxo (cf. Lat. auris, Lith. ausìs,
etc.). A similar diphthong existed in Gothic, e.g., Goth. kausjan
'try.' It is obvious that at that time the Slavs substituted their
own /ou/ for the Goth. /au/ in borrowed words; hence Goth, kausjan
was first borrowed as *kousæitæi, and then after the
monophthongization of diphthongs in Slavic (which took place between
400-600 A.D.) it became kusiti, known in Old Church Slavonic and all
historical Slavic languages. But the Germanic close /o:/ was also
rendered in the same way in Slavic, e.g., Slav, bukU 'beech,' buky
'letter' from Germanic *bo:ka-, *bo:ko:n- (cf. OSax. bo:k, Goth,
bo:ka, etc.). Now this identification of the two Germanic phonemes in
Slavic seems to prove two different periods of borrowing: an older
period when Proto-Slavic still possessed the diphthong /ou/ and
regularly substituted it for the Germanic /au/, and a later one when
Proto-Slavic began to monophthongize its diphthongs and already
transformed /ou/ into a close /o:/, which only later became /u/.
During that later period Germanic /o : o:/ was identified with that
intermediary Proto-Slavic close /o:/. Therefore Germc. *bo:ka-
through PSl. *bo:ku ultimately became bukU. Here the question arises,
how did the Slavs render the Germc. /o:/ in the older period (before
the monophthongization of diphthongs)? This question can only be
answered on the basis of the comparison of the respective Proto-
Slavic and Proto-Germanic vowel systems in that early epoch.
Everything seems to indicate that since Proto-Slavic had at that time
the quadrangle system of the type
i(:) u(:)
æ(:) o(:)
->
i, I
e^, e
y, U
a, o
the Proto-Slavs had to substitute their own /u:/ for the Germc. close
/o:/ (as phonetically the nearest sound). So, for example, Stender-
Petersen regarded Slav. myto 'toll' as borrowed from PGermc. *mo:ta-,
which, however, must be rejected for accentual reasons: myto shows
final stress in older Russian, corresponding to S-C míto, míta, etc.,
which proves that the borrowing falls into Kuryl/owicz's second
period. Ultimately it is from OHG mu:ta (see Kiparsky, 1958:22). To
be sure, there are no examples of Early Germanic loanwords in Slavic
with the substitution of the historical Slav. /y/ for PGermc. /o:/,
but the hypothesis of such a treatment is well justified
linguistically and should be taken into consideration in the study of
Early Germanic loanwords in Slavic. Perhaps sytU and sytiti belong
here, if they were borrowed from Goth. so:þa- 'Sättigung' and
ga-so:þjan 'sättigen' (see Pokorny, 876).
It is characteristic that J. Kuryl/owicz in his condensed
presentation of the Germanic loanwords in Slavic (actually the title
of the article is "Germanic-Slavic linguistic relations,"
1964:99-100) gave a more detailed chronology of these loanwords in
Slavic, without however quoting the linguistic (?) criteria upon
which his chronology is based. Undoubtedly, the starting point was
accentology, as previously proposed, but supplemented by additional
information. In any case, he distinguished the following periods of
borrowing or chronological layers of Germanic loanwords in Proto-
Slavic:
I. Borrowings from Eastern Proto-Germanic taken before the 2nd cent.
A.D.
II. Borrowings from Gothic taken between the 2nd and 4th centuries
A.D.
III. Borrowings from Balkan-Gothic taken in the 5th and 6th centuries
A.D.
Of course, there are loanwords whose chronological classification is
controversial because of the lack of sufficient linguistic criteria.
But the above chronology, which I will follow in the list of Germanic
loanwords below, has greater value for a historian than the purely
linguistic and rather too general chronology proposed by V. Kiparsky.
In the list of Germanic loanwords which constitutes the main part of
this chapter, not only original Germanic words borrowed by the Slavs
are quoted, but also Greek and Latin words transmitted by the Teutons
to the Slavs, as for example *cIrky 'church' from Greek kuri(a)kó(n)
or osIlU 'donkey' from Lat. asellus, etc.
So we are able to determine not only the Germanic origin of a word
using phonetic and derivational criteria, but also its relative
chronology using chiefly accentual criteria. The two main periods of
borrowing (or in Martynov's terms, penetration and borrowing) are
undoubtedly connected with two main periods of prehistorical Slavic-
Germanic contacts: an older period which involved the Proto-Slavs (or
rather their western tribes, the Veneti) and the Proto-Teutons
(specifically, their eastern tribes, including the Burgundians, the
Vandals, and the early Goths), and a later period which involved the
Proto-Slavs (in this case the Antes and Sclaveni = Slove^ne) and the
later Goths. By "early Goths" we should understand those Gothic clans
and tribes which settled and dwell in the northwestern part of the
Slavic territory in the Lower Vistula basin before their migration to
the Pontic region (approximately until the second half of the second
century A.D.), and by "later Goths" we should understand the Gothic
clans and tribes which moved to the Pontic region, having crossed the
whole prehistorical Slavic territory and formed a kind of Gothic
state (East-Gothic or Ostrogothic) in the southern part of the
present-day Ukraine. It should also be mentioned that these later
Goths, pushed by the Huns, crossed the eastern Carpathians and dwelt
for a time in Pannonia (5th cent. A.D.), where they still remained in
contact with the Slavs. To the later Goths we can join their close
relatives, the Gepids, who stayed in Pannonia until the arrival of
the Avars in the second half of the 6th century A.D. So the contacts
between the eastern Proto-Germanic tribes, the early Goths, the late
Goths, and the Gepids on the one hand and the Proto-Slavs on the
other lasted for at least seven centuries (1st cent. B.C.-6th cent.
A.D.).
Such a long period of contacts had to leave significant traces in the
Proto-Slavic vocabulary and undoubtedly also in the vocabulary of the
respective Germanic dialects, although we do not have any direct
sources representing these dialects (except for the West Gothic
translation of the Gospel by Ulfilas-Wulfila from the 4th century
A.D.). Indirectly, however, we will be able to trace some
prehistorical Slavic loanwords in Germanic. Therefore our list of
Germanic loanwords in Slavic will be followed by a list of Slavic
loanwords in Germanic, the latter based chiefly upon the inspiring
book by V. V. Martynov mentioned above.
A List of Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic
A) First period: borrowings from Eastern Proto-Germanic and Early
Gothic, before the 2nd century A.D. (Kuryl/owicz's layer I).
...
B) Second period: borrowings from Gothic between the 2nd and 4th
centuries A.D. (Kuryl/owicz's layer II).
...
13) lIstI 'shrewdness' -> 'trickery, deceit,'
attested in all Slav. languages, e.g.,
OCS lIstI f. 'fraus, dolus,'
ORuss. lIstI f. 'Betrug, List; Schmeichelei, etc.',
Russ. lest' (gen. lésti) 'Schmeichelei, Verfänglichkeit, Verführung,'
OPol. les´c´ f. 'Verrat; Heuchelei,'
Cz. lest f. 'List,'
S-C lâst f. 'Betrug,' etc.
It is an obvious borrowing from
Goth. lists f. 'List,'
which has exact correspondences in other Germc. languages with the
meaning 'Klugheit, Kunst, List.' The noun has a transparent etymology
in Germanic, where it is derived from the verbal root *leis-,
attested in
Goth. praeter.-praes. lais 'ich weiß' and in the causative
laisjan 'wissen machen,' 'lehren,' etc.
It is a penetration in Proto-Slavic which clashed with the original
Slav. xytrostI; where the latter was preserved, the meaning of lIstI
depreciated from 'shrewdness' to 'trickery, deceit' (Kiparsky,
1934:207-08, and Martynov, 1963:48-50)'
However, I'm not so sure the ultimate etymology of that root is Germanic, cf.:
UEW
Lapp.
N lac^c^e- -a:3^- 'put a patch on a boat',
L la:htje:- '(aufbetten, das Bett machen',
Wfs. (1021) La:t´'s^´æ- 'id.; satteln' |
tscher. (Wichm., mitg. Toiv. FUF 19:147)
J l&s^te-, U l&^s^te-, M lis^te- 'tun, machen, bereiten, zubereiten, herrichten, zuristen' |
wotj.
S les´al- 'ähnlich sein, nahe kommen, vergleichbar sein',
S K les´t-, (Wichm.) G les´tî- 'machen, verfertigen (S K G), zustande bringen, errichten, bauen, verschaffen (SK), bereiten, zurichten (G)'|
syrj. S les´al-, P ves´av-
'(zu etw.) passen, sich einander fügen (z. B. Teile des Stuhls);
einig, in Eintracht leben',
S les´ed-, P ves´e-t-, PO lò-s´it- 'bereiten, abpassen (S P PO),
ordnen (S P)'
(> ostj. Trj. Lit´åt&-, DN tes^t&-, O les´åt-
'ordnen, in Ordnung bringen, verbessern',
wog. les^ta-, les´ta-, lis^ta- 'reinigen, kehren; jäten'),
S les´id, P ves´it, PO lò-s´it
'gut, tauglich, passend, angemessen (S P), hübsch, angenehm (PO)'.
Tscher. t, wotj. al, t und syrj. al, av, ed, et, it sind deverb. Verbalsuffixe.
Das Tscher. weist zwar auf ein *e in der ersten Silbe hin, es ist jedoch wahrscheinlich, daß unter dem Einfluß des s´ im Urtscher. *ä > *e wurde.'
If the Zyry. sense ("fit together, live in harmony") was the original one, the Gothic primary ones ("know", causative "teach") could be derived from the sense of that Finno-Ugric (or substrate(?) root, which would upset Gol/a,b's applecart.
Torsten