Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/gǫsь

A variant of *gǫsь, namely *gǫserъ (cf. Latin anser), makes probability of Germanic borrowing vanishing. 188.17.181.142 16:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe (you mean "vanishingly small"). But the hypothesis that /s/ somehow blocks palatalisation in Proto-Balto-Slavic definitely makes no sense, because it clearly didn't block palatalisation in Baltic. The Germanic loanword hypothesis isn't perfect, but the alternative doesn't work, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Leumann's explanation, quoted by de Vaan (Proto-Italic nsg. *hāns, asg. *hānesem, gsg. *hāns-os > asg. *hānerem, replaced by *hānserem on the analogy with the gsg. *hāns-), implies that the equation of *gǫserъ with Latin ānser, already questionable in the first place (Slavic implies an older *ganseras and may even be a purely Slavic formation), is a complete mirage; compare, instead, Proto-West Germanic *ganʀō, from Proto-Germanic *ganzô, as a possible loan source. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)