- I know, it sounds stupid, our peoples did not hang out together, but the etymology is sourced. Abaev and HAB find the Armenian origin most likely. Vasmer writes s.v. книга "Less likely is the explanation of кни́га from Assyrian kunukku “seal”, kanīku “sealed object’, Armenian կնիք (knikʿ, “seal”) (the latter a borrowing from Assyrian according to Hübschmann 307f), despite Mikkola (FUF 1, 113; 2, 77; Ursl. Gr. 11; МSFОu 52, 187 и сл.; RS 1, 14), Berneker (1, 664), because in that case the intermediate geographical links are missing and there are discrepancies in form and meaning; see Ляпунов, ИОРЯС 30, 11; Шёльд, Lw. St. 19 и сл.; Тойвонен, FUF 21, 126."
- Trubachev adds, that the Akkado-Armenian origin is repeated in Капанцян, Историко-лингвистические работы, Ереван, 1956, стр. 152. I don't have this reference at my disposal.
- Personally, I do not believe in this etymology. --Vahag (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I've read on w:Bogomilism that "In 970 the emperor John I Tzimiskes transplanted no less than 200,000 Armenian Paulicians to Europe and settled them in the neighbourhood of Philippopolis (today's Plovdiv in Thrace).". But that's chronologically too late, because the word was attested earlier. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know, Armenian-Slav contacts in Thrace were the first thing to come to my mind. They predate Tzimiskes' (BTW, from Middle Armenian չմուշկ (čʿmušk, “slipper”)) deportation. For example, the w:Macedonian dynasty is of Armenian origin. As were the Cometopuli. But the word is not confined to South Slavic. Besides, it's not like Armenians were the first literate people to be encountered by Slavs. --Vahag (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's the quote from Aleksander Brückner's dictionary to which I source our (mis-)reconstruction *kьnъ that User:Angr just corrected to *kъnъ: "poszły od kna (kien, p. knieja)" (on the pages to the right). I believe that kie usually comes from *kъ, in which case Angr was right. --WikiTiki89 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can't read Polish, so I don't know what it says, but AFAIK k > č / _ ь by the first palatalization already in Proto-Slavic, so any *kьnъ would have become *čьnъ before Late Proto-Slavic. If Late Proto-Slavic definitely has k, then the only yer that could have followed is ъ. As for the various possible etymologies of this word, if a Proto-Slavic *kъnъ (“tree bark”) can be confirmed, then Brückner's etymology seems to me to be the most plausible one. A derivation from Germanic kenning or Turkic küiniŋ seems unlikely on phonological grounds, while a derivation from Armenian is unlikely for the reasons given in the above thread. But is *kъnъ (“tree bark”) real? Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Vegetation already lists *bolna and *kora for 'bark', not to mention *lǫtъ and *lyko for 'bast'; one starts to wonder how many words for 'bark' Proto-Slavic really needed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Basically it says "comes from kien (compare? knieja)" (in the Polish, the genitive kna is used do to Polish grammar, and the nominative kien is given in the parentheses). We don't have an entry for knieja, but it is listed as a translation of wood (in the sense "woodland"). --WikiTiki89 18:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)