Latin and Slavonic for `moon'

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/10/99 3:27:35 AM, our moderator wrote:

<<[ Moderator's comment:
  *g does not > **s in Slavic, but to *z.
  --rma ]>>

But *g >*z is also the formula for the first palatalization - so how could *g
> *z  be part of the first change from *PIE - unless of course the same
change happened twice?  My best understanding is that the first
palatalization is reconstructed to have occurred a bit later than the
original split-off from *PIE.  And the first palatization affected *g (> z)
*k and *x only so far as they immediately preceded a front original vowel.
In the examples I gave - 'siedczy', 'snac', 'snowac'  - all closely related
to *g^no(H3) in meaning - the /n/ separates the *g from the original front
vowel.

In other for any initial *g to have gotten to the first palatalization, it
would have had to survived satemization.  In which case, either *g was
unaffected by satemization (contrary to mcv's statement) or only borrowings
with *g were left to undergo the Slavic palatalizations.

Now, remember that mcv wrote: "<<The Slavic palatalizations are not
applicable here, only the satem palatalization *g^ > z.  Cf. znaju "I know"
from *g^en(H3)-
"to know".>>

(And I must go back to my point that <<'sto' (hundred), 'dziesiec' (ten) in
Polish>>  means that if satem palatalization yielded *k > *s as far as those
forms are concerned, then satemization must have preceeded the first
palatalization.  Otherwise, *k would have merely yielded the voiceless dental
affricative /c/ with many examples (OCS cena 'price', cf. Lith 'kaina))

And once again I think it should be an indication that something in the
analysis is out of whack when mcv writes: <<Slavic hasn't preserved *gen(H)-
except in the derivation ze~tI (*gen(@)tis) "son-in-law, sister's husband".>>
 How could such an extensively used root throughout the rest of IE disappear
entirely from Slavic?  It seems like a mistake doesn't it?

And this all seems to based on the *g > *z formula.  And it creates a
situation where a huge number of very fundamental words must be considered
borrowings.  How and when were such words as "gniazd-" (nest), 'gno-ic'
(fertilizer), "go-ic" (care for, heal), "god-y" (wedding), "gniesz-" (pressed
together, grouped), 'gnac', 'gon-ic' (chase), 'geba' (mouth), 'koh-ac' (love,
marry), 'krzek' (spawn), 'nasie' (seed), 'narod' (born), 'siewca' (seedling),
and 'kolano' (knee) were borrowed into Polish - and what words they must have
replaced - is difficult to see (for this naive observer, anyway.)

<<Might this suggest that 'znac' and similar forms might be borrowings coming
after satem?

[ Moderator's reply: No.--rma ]>>

I'm not sure how that can be ascertained, especially since the Slavic
palatalization do precisely the same thing after satemization.

Regards,
Steve Long