Originally Slavic or Borrowing from Germanic?

[Jussi Halla-aho]

Well, the LACK of polnoglasie/liquid metathesis of
course indicates that a word might be a borrowing, but
only if the word is borrowed AFTER the said changes
had taken place in late Proto-Slavic.

Earlier borrowings, Germanic or otherwise, participate
in the elimination of liquid diphthongs just like
native items do.

Is it possible that you have Grimm's law in mind? In
Germanic borrowings we have k, p, t instead of
expected g (or z), p, t. The word for 'milk' is one
example. On the basis of its Indo-European cognates,
the Slavic word should be *molozo/*mlezo etc. In
Germanic, the proto-sound *g' yielded k by Grimm's
law, and therefore Slavic moloko/mleko etc. is by many
(including myself) seen as a borrowing.

Hope this helped.

Jussi Halla-aho

> Yes, it is quite complicated, since sound changes
> abound. This should be a 
> relatively "simple" rule (as simple as things get in
> comparative linguistics) 
> involving only sound change, not semantics. I think
> it has to do with 
> polnoglasie/liquid metathesis and that the word for
> "milk" was used as an 
> example (but of what, I don't remember). 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Use your web browser to search the archives,
> control your subscription
>   options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the
> SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    
> http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------