Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/korľь

Umlaut, Dybo's law, liquid metathesis, change of i > ь, iotation, Ivšić's law, change of a > o - these are all (well, more or less :P) Common Slavic changes that *karlju (as this word was borrowed from OHG) underwent. Listing earlier form whence the *korljь developed can be illustrative. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sound changes often stay productive for some time after the time they started to apply. Iotation certainly remained productive for some time, and umlaut probably did too because both were automatic and systematic changes. The first evidence we have of iotation ceasing to be productive is when the jers collapse, creating new consonant sequences that do not iotate. In fact, the Germanic original did not even have any -u ending (since it was *karl or similar by that time) so this ending was added directly by the Slavs to conform to their phonology/morphology, which renders that point moot. The change a > o is really just a matter of sound substitution since Proto-Slavic had no short a. And consider what would have happened when -ar- were borrowed into a language that did not allow such a sequence? It would have converted it to something that were allowed - just as it did with its own native sequences before. So the application of these changes does not necessarily set an earliest date of borrowing. —CodeCat 00:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

*karlju is a substantivized possesisve adjective. If this were borrowed prior to the change of i > ь it wouldn't have the same accentuation. *a > *o dated to ~9th century and posterior to Dybo's law. Late Proto-Slavic had both *a and *o, so it's really not a matter of "sound substitution" but a regular sound change in the history of Common Slavic. The name of Charlemagne was borrowed sometime in the 9th century, with all of these sound changes occurring (some diachronically and some synchronically) in the order I mentioned, but what almost certainly did not happen is Karl being borrowed directly as *korl'ь. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Translations at king have several Turkic words (Uzbek, Tatar, Kazakh, there could be more) that look like borrowings from Russian/OESl, that should be added as descendants once they're properly etymologized. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Turkish and Azeri "kral" but other Turkic words (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Tatar, Uzbek) are taken from respectable dictionaries. Uzbek "qirol", Kurdish "qiral" may have the same origin as Turkish/Azeri kral (don't know if they are related to Slavic but Uzbek "korol" is obviously Slavic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

церковнославянский

Ivan, Vasmer used OCS крал̑ь (kral̑ĭ) in the etymological dictionary. Does OCS need to be attested? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It says церк.-слав. which means "Church Slavonic", not "Old Church Slavonic". The abbreviation for OCS in Russian is ст.-слав.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. It doesn't seem to have a code? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are different Church Slavnic recension which represent different literary languages, and should be assigned a different code each. Vasmer is imprecise and doesn't source attestations, as opposed to e.g. ESSJa which only lists Gerov's Bulgarian dictionary for the cited form, though I'm not sure what БТР exactly is (Bulgarian <something> dicionary). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)