Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/gǫsь

This Proto-Slavic entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

Proto-Slavic

Anser anser

Etymology

Etymology disputed. Two theories:

From Proto-Balto-Slavic *gansís (the presence of *-s- at the root blocks satemization), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns.[1][2]

A direct inheritance from Proto-Balto-Slavic *gansís, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns, citing the accentuation matching (i-stem with mobile accentuation) with that of the Baltic equivalent as well as the formal match between *gǫserъ (“gander”) with Latin ānser.[3]

Alternatively, borrowed from unattested Gothic *𐌲𐌰𐌽𐍃 (*gans) (due to its apparent "centum" character), from Proto-Germanic *gans, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns.

Noun

*gǫ̑sь f[4]

goose

Declension

Lua error in Module:utilities at line 142: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'h' (a nil value)

Derived terms

*gǫsьjь (“goosey”)
*gǫserъ (“gander”)
*gǫsakъ (“gander”)
*gǫsokъ (“gander”)

Descendants

East Slavic:
- Old East Slavic: гѫсь (gǫsĭ)
  - Old Ruthenian: гусь (husʹ), кгусь (gusʹ)
    - Belarusian: гусь (husʹ)
    - ⇒ Carpathian Rusyn: гу́ска (húska)
    - ⇒ Ukrainian: гу́ска (húska)
  - Russian: гусь (gusʹ)
South Slavic:
- Old Church Slavonic:
  Old Cyrillic script: гѫсь (gǫsĭ)
  
  Glagolitic script: ⰳⱘⱄⱐ (gǫsĭ)
- ⇒ Bulgarian: гъ́ска (gǎ́ska)
  - → Romanian: gâscă
- Macedonian: гуска (guska)
- Serbo-Croatian:
  Cyrillic: гу̏ска
  
  Latin: gȕska
- Slovene: gọ̑s (tonal orthography)
West Slavic:
- Old Czech: hus
  - Czech: husa
- Kashubian: gãs
- Polabian: gǫs
- Polish: gęś, gąska
- Slovak: hus
- Slovincian: gą̃s
- Sorbian:
  - Lower Sorbian: gus
  - Upper Sorbian: hus, huso

References

Meillet, Antoine (1924) Le slave commun, Paris: Champion
Živlóv, M. A. (2016), “Review of S. Pronk-Tiethoff «The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic»”, in Journal of Language Relationship‎ (in Russian), volume 14/1, Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian State University for the Humanities, Gorgias Press, page 67:
Отсутствие «сатемного» рефлекса в славянском при его наличии в балтийском было объяснено еще А. Мейе: в славянском (в отличие от балтийского) в словах, содержащих сибилянт *s, не наблюдается результатов перехода ПИЕ *ḱ > *s и *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Правило Мейе не было опровергнуто позднейшими исследователями — оно было просто забыто. [The absence of a “satem” reflex in the Slavic, when present in the Baltic, was explained by A. Meillet: in the Slavic (unlike the Baltic) words containing the sibilant *s, the results of the PIE *ḱ > *s and *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z transition are not observed. Meillet’s rule was not refuted by later researchers — it was simply forgotten.]
Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia E. (2013) The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic‎ (in English), Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi, →ISBN, page 193
Derksen, Rick (2008), “*gǫ̑sь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden; Boston: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 184: “f. i (c) ‘goose’”

This article is issued from Wiktionary. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] Meillet, Antoine (1924) Le slave commun, Paris: Champion

[2] Živlóv, M. A. (2016), “Review of S. Pronk-Tiethoff «The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic»”, in Journal of Language Relationship‎ (in Russian), volume 14/1, Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian State University for the Humanities, Gorgias Press, page 67:
Отсутствие «сатемного» рефлекса в славянском при его наличии в балтийском было объяснено еще А. Мейе: в славянском (в отличие от балтийского) в словах, содержащих сибилянт *s, не наблюдается результатов перехода ПИЕ *ḱ > *s и *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Правило Мейе не было опровергнуто позднейшими исследователями — оно было просто забыто. [The absence of a “satem” reflex in the Slavic, when present in the Baltic, was explained by A. Meillet: in the Slavic (unlike the Baltic) words containing the sibilant *s, the results of the PIE *ḱ > *s and *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z transition are not observed. Meillet’s rule was not refuted by later researchers — it was simply forgotten.]

[3] Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia E. (2013) The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic‎ (in English), Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi, →ISBN, page 193

[4] Derksen, Rick (2008), “*gǫ̑sь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden; Boston: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 184: “f. i (c) ‘goose’”