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.

  • 2
    I’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. Jun 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? Jun 7 at 13:08
  • 3
    Germanic 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 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. Jun 7 at 13:16


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.