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

Etymology

From Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns.^[1]^[2]

Noun

*źansís f^[1]^[2]

goose

Inflection

Declension of *źansís (i-stem, mobile accent)
	singular	dual	plural
nominative	*źansís	*źansīˀ	*źansīs
accusative	*źansin	*źansīˀ	*źansīns
genitive	*źanséis	*źansijau⁽ˀ⁾	*źansijṓn
locative	*źansḗi	*źansijáu⁽ˀ⁾	*źansišú
dative	*źansī	*źansimā́ˀ	*źansimás
instrumental	*źansimí	*źansimā́ˀ	*źansimī́s
vocative	*źansei	*źansīˀ	*źansīs

In mobile paradigms, forms without an accent marker are enclinomena, which do not have inherent lexical accent.

Alternative forms

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

Descendants

East Baltic:
- Latgalian: zūss
- Latvian: zoss
- Lithuanian: žąsi̇̀s
- Samogitian: žōsės
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

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Derksen, Rick (2008), “*gǫ̑sь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden; Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 184: “BSl. *gansís”
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 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.
Otsutstvije «satemnovo» refleksa v slavjanskom pri jevo naličii v baltijskom bylo obʺjasneno ješče A. Mejje: v slavjanskom (v otličije ot baltijskovo) v slovax, soderžaščix sibiljant *s, ne nabljudajetsja rezulʹtatov perexoda PIJe *ḱ > *s i *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Pravilo Mejje 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.

[EDSIL-1] 1.0 ^1.1 Derksen, Rick (2008), “*gǫ̑sь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden; Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 184: “BSl. *gansís”

[EDBIL-2] 2.0 ^2.1 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.
Otsutstvije «satemnovo» refleksa v slavjanskom pri jevo naličii v baltijskom bylo obʺjasneno ješče A. Mejje: v slavjanskom (v otličije ot baltijskovo) v slovax, soderžaščix sibiljant *s, ne nabljudajetsja rezulʹtatov perexoda PIJe *ḱ > *s i *ǵ, ǵʰ > *z. Pravilo Mejje 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]