| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Baghdad
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marc |
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 12:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
Quote: When do the "religious" connotations appear?
"Lord"
Marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Atkinson |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
Quote: On May 2, 12:25 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"Marc" <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote...
On Apr 30, 11:58 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
acc. to a previous post of mine steingass gives teh etymology as
zend
ba*gh*o: da:d "God gave"
What's "Zend"? Commentaries on the Avesta?
Is "bagho" IE (and therefore related to Russian "bog")?
Slavic "bogU" doesn't descend directly from IE, but is a loan from an
Iranian language. Proto-IE *bhagos apparently meant "apportioner"
according to Mallory and Adams (Tocharian B pa:ke, share, part), and
has religious conotations only in II (Sanskrit "bhaga-", one of the
Vedic gods; Avestan "baga-", good fortune) and Phrygian (Bagaios, an
epithet of Zeus).
The Slavic borrowing seems to have been pretty early, before -g-
-Q-
("baga" > "bagha"), which had already occured in Younger Avestan
(8-9th
century BC), several centuries before Old Persian.
This gh/g correspondence is apparently why Vasmer doesn't accept
borrowing. He is willing to accept a semantic convergence in the
Slavic and Iranian words, both directly inherited. I get the
impression his is a minority view.
Yes. Though other than the semantic convergence, I can't see any reason
why this wouldn't be so. Note that if it's borrowed, the borrowing must
have occurred early, since /a/ > /o/ seems to have occurred in quite
early in Proto-Slavic. Also, "bogU" has vocative "boz^e", which has
undergone the "first palatization of velars", which was also early.
"Early" would mean some time in the first millenium BC, I guess.
AFAICS (from a quick glance at a Lithuanian dictionary) there's no
cognate of "bag-" in Baltic. Which doesn't necessarily prove that the
word doesn't go back to Balto-Slavic. Lithuanian has "dievas" for
"god", cognate with Vedic "deva", god. The proto-II gods were demoted
to demons by Zarathustra (Avestan "daeva", demon), and the word was
borrowed from Iranian into Slavic as "divU", demon -- as were several
other religious words, "to divine", "paradise", "holy", and the supreme
Slavic pagan diety "SvarogU".
All the references I've got claim that the word "bogU" was also borrowed
from a northern Iranian language (Scythian, Sarmatian, Alanic). But
they don't say why this _must_ be the case.
AFAIK, -g- > -Q- is the case in all modern Iranian languages, which
suggests that it happened early, after Older Avestan (which didn't have
it), but before those "northern" languages got completely separated
off. But I know buggerall about the history of the Iranian languages,
so I don't know whether this makes sense.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 02 May 2008 04:38:08 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:QUwSj.6882$ko5.2005@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
Quote: benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
On May 2, 12:25 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
Quote: Slavic "bogU" doesn't descend directly from IE, but is a loan from an
Iranian language. Proto-IE *bhagos apparently meant "apportioner"
according to Mallory and Adams (Tocharian B pa:ke, share, part), and
has religious conotations only in II (Sanskrit "bhaga-", one of the
Vedic gods; Avestan "baga-", good fortune) and Phrygian (Bagaios, an
epithet of Zeus).
The Slavic borrowing seems to have been pretty early, before -g- > -Q-
("baga" > "bagha"), which had already occured in Younger
Avestan (8-9th century BC), several centuries before
Old Persian.
This gh/g correspondence is apparently why Vasmer doesn't accept
borrowing. He is willing to accept a semantic convergence in the
Slavic and Iranian words, both directly inherited. I get the
impression his is a minority view.
Yes. Though other than the semantic convergence, I can't see any reason
why this wouldn't be so. Note that if it's borrowed, the borrowing must
have occurred early, since /a/ > /o/ seems to have occurred in quite
early in Proto-Slavic. Also, "bogU" has vocative "boz^e", which has
undergone the "first palatization of velars", which was also early.
"Early" would mean some time in the first millenium BC, I guess.
Derksen (Slavic inherited lexicon on-line) comments:
The Slavic noun *bogU is usually considered a borrowing
from Iranian (cf. Vaillant Gr. I: 16). This hypothesis is
supported by the fact that the etymon does not show the
effects of Winter's law.
Quote: AFAICS (from a quick glance at a Lithuanian dictionary) there's no
cognate of "bag-" in Baltic.
He doesn't mention one, and he probably would, since he also
has an on-line Baltic inherited lexicon.
[...]
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:49 pm
|
|