Re: (unknown)

Am 12.03.2012 20:51, schrieb Piotr Gasiorowski:

>
> W dniu 2012-03-12 07:35, Alx pisze:
>
> > Yet, I was not aware of the slavic reflex of the word thus I am really
> > interesed to know how is the slavic jazvrŭ to be explained
> since the
> > word appears doubtless to be related to Romanian viezure and Albanian
> > vjedhullë.
>
> Whether something is "doubtless to be related" to something else is to
> be decided on the basis of comparative analysis, not from eyeballing the
> evidence, even if the words in question *look* similar.
>

"appears doubtless to be related " is not the same as "is doubtless to
be related". For the, the analysis
you speak about I was asking here:-))

>
>
> > Is this really a slavic compound of an IE-root or -how it
> > seems - is this a loan into Slavic from a protoform like *we3uru: ?
> > If this is not a loan, then how is explained the "ja" at the begin of
> > the word in Slavic?
>
> The Slavic word is *e^zvIcI (rather than *jazvIcI), related to *e^zva
> 'wound, opening, hole', also 'badger's sett', with Baltic cognates
> suggesting PBSl. *ái3'wa: as if from earlier *(h)oig^wah2 (the acute on
> the first syllable must be due to Winter's Law, hence g^, not *g^H).
> It makes the BSl. badger, etymologically, a 'hole-dweller'. There is no
> way to relate it to *wed(z)ula: or whatever alternative preform you
> might reconstruct for Alb. vjed(h)ullë ~ vjellë etc. and Romanian viezure.
>
> Piotr
>

mmmmm.. well it seems a matter of preference here. The words looks
phonetically
appropiate and the semantic is the same as in Albanian and Romanian. On
another
side, you prefer so see cognates in Balto-Slavic where the semantic can
be forced trough
"wounds" and "holes" to give some "openings" to sustain a certain view
to get -as Brian said- a "hobbit":))

The protoform you speak about has been -at least in Romanian and
Albanian- something
like *wedh with the meaning "tief". The word for "tief" in today
standard Romanian
is "hots" but "ots" is an older form which is still used. Probably that
witthout the suffix -ulle: the "e" in *wedh-
did not jotacised to "ie" but it became as expected an "ã" thus *wedh-u

> *wãdzu>*uãdzu >*odzu>ots which

eventually aspirated became the today "hots".
I have to be honest to say that I am not happy with the unexpected
change of "dz" to "ts" ; we do know
about such suddenly change from mute to sonor and other way around(
latin vitricus> vitreg where c=g)
but that is not a really help.
Now, to the Slavic. jazvru. One can chop around it but it seems very
easy to be a loan from a *viezuru
with the lost of "v" due the very strong speak of "ie" which will yeld
an *iezuru when speaking (regionally, as
most of the very ancient words with contains "vi" and "bi" are shifted
to "ghi" and "pi" is shifted to "chi",
the word is spoken "ghiezur" ).

It doesn't really matters too much if this is a loan into Slavic or not,
it was entertaining to see how some
connections can be, thank you for your answer.


Alex

>
>