Talk:кот
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Wakuran
Is this an early Germanic borrowing? Wakuran 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don’t think so, it’s probably from Latin. —Stephen 22:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, if it was Proto-Slavic, a Germanic origin seemed likely, since there are several other G loanwords in Proto-Slavic, but afaik, not many Latin. If not, a Latin borrowing is likely, but then, the whole section should probably be rewritten, since as it stands now, it contradicts itself. What do Max Vasmer and other authorities think? Wakuran 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to one theory, this is a deverbative of *kotiti sę "to have young" (with much clearer semantics of reflexes of such *kotъ in West and South Slavic), itself originating from unknown non-IE source. According to another, it was a direct borrowing (the verb then being a denominal derivation), also probably from non-IE language, just like Latin cattus (attested since Palladius, ousting fēlēs), but also being compared to catulus (“young of an animal”) (but this one being attested since Plautus), itself also prob. of non-IE origin. Unless there are specific reasons to assume Gothic mediation of obvious Vulgar Latinism, there is no reason to mention it at all. We're not in the period of 19th century wishful-thinking linguistics anymore ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 01:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I figured that it was confusing to have both "Proto-Slavic" and "not originally Slavic" in the same section, but maybe it isn't such a contradiction as it appears? Wakuran 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, it just means that it existed in Proto-Slavic, but at some point before then, it was probably borrowed from some other language, like the Latin branch. —Stephen 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay... Wakuran 13:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, it just means that it existed in Proto-Slavic, but at some point before then, it was probably borrowed from some other language, like the Latin branch. —Stephen 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I figured that it was confusing to have both "Proto-Slavic" and "not originally Slavic" in the same section, but maybe it isn't such a contradiction as it appears? Wakuran 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to one theory, this is a deverbative of *kotiti sę "to have young" (with much clearer semantics of reflexes of such *kotъ in West and South Slavic), itself originating from unknown non-IE source. According to another, it was a direct borrowing (the verb then being a denominal derivation), also probably from non-IE language, just like Latin cattus (attested since Palladius, ousting fēlēs), but also being compared to catulus (“young of an animal”) (but this one being attested since Plautus), itself also prob. of non-IE origin. Unless there are specific reasons to assume Gothic mediation of obvious Vulgar Latinism, there is no reason to mention it at all. We're not in the period of 19th century wishful-thinking linguistics anymore ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 01:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, if it was Proto-Slavic, a Germanic origin seemed likely, since there are several other G loanwords in Proto-Slavic, but afaik, not many Latin. If not, a Latin borrowing is likely, but then, the whole section should probably be rewritten, since as it stands now, it contradicts itself. What do Max Vasmer and other authorities think? Wakuran 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)