Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/źansís

This Proto-Balto-Slavic entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

Proto-Balto-Slavic edit

Etymology edit

From Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns.

Noun edit

*źansís f^[1]^[2]

goose

Alternative forms edit

*gansís (the presence of *-s- at the root blocks satemization)^[3]^[4]

Inflection edit

Declension of *źansís (i-stem, mobile accent)
	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	*źansís	*źánsīˀ	*źánsejes
Accusative	*źánsin	*źánsīˀ	*źánsī⁽ˀ⁾ns
Genitive	*źanséis	*źansejáu	*źansejṓn
Locative	*źansḗiˀ	*źansejáu	*źansíšu
Dative	*źánsei	*źansímā⁽ˀ⁾	*źansímas
Instrumental	*źánsīˀ (early forms)	*źansímāˀ	*źansímīˀs
Vocative	*źanséi	*źánsīˀ	*źánsejes

Descendants edit

East Baltic:
- Latvian: zoss
- Lithuanian: žąsìs
West Baltic:
- Old Prussian: sansy (= zansi, with s due to German orthography)
*gansís
- Proto-Slavic: *gǫ̑sь (see there for further descendants)
→ Proto-Finnic: *hanhi (see there for further descendants)
→ Proto-Mordvinic: *čänžə (see there for further descendants)

References edit

^ Derksen, Rick (2008) “*gǫ̑sь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 184: “BSl. *gansís”
^ Derksen, Rick (2015) “žąsis”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 13), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 514: “BSl. *źansís”
^ Meillet, Antoine (1924) Le slave commun, Paris: Champion
^ Živlóv, M. A. (2016) “Review of S. Pronk-Tiethoff «The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic»”, in Journal of Language Relationship‎^[1] (in Russian), volume 14/1, Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian State University for the Humanities, Gorgias Press, page 67:
Отсутствие «сатемного» рефлекса в славянском при его наличии в балтийском было объяснено еще А. Мейе: в славянском (в отличие от балтийского) в словах, содержащих сибилянт *s, не наблюдается результатов перехода ПИЕ *ḱ > *s и *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Правило Мейе не было опровергнуто позднейшими исследователями — оно было просто забыто. [The absence of a “satem” reflex in the Slavic, when present in the Baltic, was explained by A. Meillet: in the Slavic (unlike the Baltic) words containing the sibilant *s, the results of the PIE *ḱ > *s and *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z transition are not observed. Meillet’s rule was not refuted by later researchers — it was simply forgotten.]
Otsutstvije «satemnovo» refleksa v slavjanskom pri jevo naličii v baltijskom bylo obʺjasneno ješče A. Meje: v slavjanskom (v otličije ot baltijskovo) v slovax, soderžaščix sibiljant *s, ne nabljudajetsja rezulʹtatov perexoda PIJe *ḱ > *s i *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Pravilo Meje ne bylo oprovergnuto pozdnejšimi issledovateljami — ono bylo prosto zabyto. [The absence of a “satem” reflex in the Slavic, when present in the Baltic, was explained by A. Meillet: in the Slavic (unlike the Baltic) words containing the sibilant *s, the results of the PIE *ḱ > *s and *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z transition are not observed. Meillet’s rule was not refuted by later researchers — it was simply forgotten.]

[1] Derksen, Rick (2008) “*gǫ̑sь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 184: “BSl. *gansís”

[2] Derksen, Rick (2015) “žąsis”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 13), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 514: “BSl. *źansís”

[3] Meillet, Antoine (1924) Le slave commun, Paris: Champion

[4] Živlóv, M. A. (2016) “Review of S. Pronk-Tiethoff «The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic»”, in Journal of Language Relationship‎^[1] (in Russian), volume 14/1, Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian State University for the Humanities, Gorgias Press, page 67:
Отсутствие «сатемного» рефлекса в славянском при его наличии в балтийском было объяснено еще А. Мейе: в славянском (в отличие от балтийского) в словах, содержащих сибилянт *s, не наблюдается результатов перехода ПИЕ *ḱ > *s и *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Правило Мейе не было опровергнуто позднейшими исследователями — оно было просто забыто. [The absence of a “satem” reflex in the Slavic, when present in the Baltic, was explained by A. Meillet: in the Slavic (unlike the Baltic) words containing the sibilant *s, the results of the PIE *ḱ > *s and *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z transition are not observed. Meillet’s rule was not refuted by later researchers — it was simply forgotten.]
Otsutstvije «satemnovo» refleksa v slavjanskom pri jevo naličii v baltijskom bylo obʺjasneno ješče A. Meje: v slavjanskom (v otličije ot baltijskovo) v slovax, soderžaščix sibiljant *s, ne nabljudajetsja rezulʹtatov perexoda PIJe *ḱ > *s i *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Pravilo Meje ne bylo oprovergnuto pozdnejšimi issledovateljami — ono bylo prosto zabyto. [The absence of a “satem” reflex in the Slavic, when present in the Baltic, was explained by A. Meillet: in the Slavic (unlike the Baltic) words containing the sibilant *s, the results of the PIE *ḱ > *s and *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z transition are not observed. Meillet’s rule was not refuted by later researchers — it was simply forgotten.]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]