The Russian has an unclear etymology. Is there a phonological reason why it can’t be from a Germanic root? Wiktionary says the Germanic root (‘diurijaz‘) is also uncertain and might come from Latin “dūrus”; ‘hard’. All seems very unlikely.
3
-
2I’d say they can’t easily both reflect the same root through direct inheritance, since the Germanic form *deur(i)jaz (= Wiktionary’s *diur(i)jaz) has a diphthong (< PIE *eu̯), whereas the Balto-Slavic form *dargaz has a monophthong (presumably < PIE *o). If we make up a root like *dʰergʷʰ-, it could potentially work: thematic *dʰorgʷʰ-ós would give PBS *dargás, and (somewhat unusual) *dʰergʷʰ-i̯ós would likely give PG **dergʷjaz > *derwjaz. Metathesis of this to *deurjaz would not be unexpected. But I don’t think such a root is otherwise attested.– Janus Bahs JacquetJun 7 at 12:05
-
Thanks, I’m so inexpert in these sound changes that I must take your word for it, but I’m interested in your reasoning all the same. Is the assumption that Germanic diphthongs never become Slavic monophthongs?– ForthinsorrowJun 7 at 13:08
-
3Germanic isn’t a predecessor of Slavic, so Germanic diphthongs didn’t become Slavic anything as such (except in loan words). They sometimes correspond to Slavic monophthongs, but only in specific cases. The Indo-European diphthong *eu̯, which is what lies behind Germanic *eu (or *iu), became *jau in Balto-Slavic, not *a. Later on, the diphthong *au was indeed monophthongised in Slavic (though not Baltic), but to long *ū which doesn’t help here. Balto-Slavic *a as reconstructed in *dargás can only go back to Indo-European *o or *a, not to any diphthongs.– Janus Bahs JacquetJun 7 at 13:16
Add a comment
|