Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/gǫsь

This Proto-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-Slavic

Etymology 1

Etymology disputed. Two theories:

From Proto-Balto-Slavic *gansís (the presence of *-s- at the root blocks satemization), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns.^[1]^[2]

A direct inheritance from Proto-Balto-Slavic *gansís, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns, citing the accentuation matching (i-stem with mobile accentuation) with that of the Baltic equivalent as well as the formal match between *gǫserъ (“gander”) with Latin ānser.^[3]

Alternatively, borrowed from unattested Gothic *𐌲𐌰𐌽𐍃 (*gans) (due to its apparent "centum" character), from Proto-Germanic *gans, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰh₂éns.

Noun

*gǫ̑sь f^[4]

goose

Declension

Declension of *gǫ̑sь (i-stem, accent paradigm c)

	singular	dual	plural
nominative	*gǫ̑sь	*gǫ̑si	*gǫ̑si
genitive	*gǫsí	gǫsьjù, gǫšu^*	*gǫsь̀jь
dative	*gǫ̑si	*gǫsьmà	*gǫ̑sьmъ
accusative	*gǫ̑sь	*gǫ̑si	*gǫ̑si
instrumental	*gǫsьjǫ́	*gǫsьmà	*gǫsьmì
locative	*gǫsí	gǫsьjù, gǫšu^*	*gǫ̑sьxъ
vocative	*gǫsi	*gǫ̑si	*gǫ̑si

^* The second form occurs in languages that contract early across /j/ (e.g. Czech), while the first form occurs in languages that do not (e.g. Russian).

Derived terms

*gǫsьjь (“goosey”)
*gǫserъ (“gander”)
*gǫsakъ (“gander”)
*gǫsokъ (“gander”)

Descendants

East Slavic:
- Old East Slavic: гѫсь (gǫsĭ)
  - Old Ruthenian: гусь (husʹ), кгусь (gusʹ)
    - Belarusian: гусь (husʹ)
    - ⇒ Carpathian Rusyn: гу́ска (húska)
    - ⇒ Ukrainian: гу́ска (húska)
  - Russian: гусь (gusʹ)
South Slavic:
- Old Church Slavonic:
  Old Cyrillic script: гѫсь (gǫsĭ)
  
  Glagolitic script: ⰳⱘⱄⱐ (gǫsĭ)
- ⇒ Bulgarian: гъ́ска (gǎ́ska)
  - → Romanian: gâscă
- Macedonian: гуска (guska)
- Serbo-Croatian:
  Cyrillic: гу̏ска
  
  Latin: gȕska
- Slovene: gọ̑s (tonal orthography)
West Slavic:
- Old Czech: hus
  - Czech: husa
- Kashubian: gãs
- Polabian: gǫs
- Polish: gęś, gąska
- Slovak: hus
- Slovincian: gãs
- Sorbian:
  - Lower Sorbian: gus
  - Upper Sorbian: hus, huso

References

^ 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.]
^ Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia E. (2013) The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic‎^[2], Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi, →ISBN, page 193
^ 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: “f. i (c) ‘goose’”

Etymology 2

From *gǫ̑sь (“goose”) +‎ *-ьjь.

Adjective

*gǫsь^[1]^[2]

(relational) goose

Declension

Indefinite declension of *gǫsь (soft)

singular	masculine	feminine	neuter
nominative	*gǫsь	*gǫsa	*gǫse
genitive	*gǫsa	*gǫsę̇	*gǫsa
dative	*gǫsu	*gǫsi	*gǫsu
accusative	*gǫsь	*gǫsǫ	*gǫse
instrumental	*gǫsemь	*gǫsejǫ	*gǫsemь
locative	*gǫsi	*gǫsi	*gǫsi
vocative	*gǫsu	*gǫse	*gǫse
dual	masculine	feminine	neuter
nominative	*gǫsa	*gǫsi	*gǫsi
genitive	*gǫsu	*gǫsu	*gǫsu
dative	*gǫsema	*gǫsama	*gǫsema
accusative	*gǫsa	*gǫsi	*gǫsi
instrumental	*gǫsema	*gǫsama	*gǫsema
locative	*gǫsu	*gǫsu	*gǫsu
vocative	*gǫsa	*gǫsi	*gǫsi
plural	masculine	feminine	neuter
nominative	*gǫsi	*gǫsę̇	*gǫsa
genitive	*gǫsь	*gǫsь	*gǫsь
dative	*gǫsemъ	*gǫsamъ	*gǫsemъ
accusative	*gǫsę̇	*gǫsę̇	*gǫsa
instrumental	*gǫsi	*gǫsami	*gǫsi
locative	*gǫsixъ	*gǫsaxъ	*gǫsixъ
vocative	*gǫsi	*gǫsę̇	*gǫsa

Definite declension of *gǫsь (soft)

singular	masculine	feminine	neuter
nominative	*gǫsьjь	*gǫsaja	*gǫseje
genitive	*gǫsajego	*gǫsę̇ję̇	*gǫsajego
dative	*gǫsujemu	*gǫsiji	*gǫsujemu
accusative	*gǫsьjь	*gǫsǫjǫ	*gǫseje
instrumental	*gǫsijimь	*gǫsǫjǫ	*gǫsijimь
locative	*gǫsijemь	*gǫsiji	*gǫsijemь
vocative	*gǫsьjь	*gǫsaja	*gǫseje
dual	masculine	feminine	neuter
nominative	*gǫsaja	*gǫsiji	*gǫsiji
genitive	*gǫsuju	*gǫsuju	*gǫsuju
dative	*gǫsijima	*gǫsijima	*gǫsijima
accusative	*gǫsaja	*gǫsiji	*gǫsiji
instrumental	*gǫsijima	*gǫsijima	*gǫsijima
locative	*gǫsuju	*gǫsuju	*gǫsuju
vocative	*gǫsaja	*gǫsiji	*gǫsiji
plural	masculine	feminine	neuter
nominative	*gǫsiji	*gǫsę̇ję̇	*gǫsaja
genitive	*gǫsьjixъ	*gǫsьjixъ	*gǫsьjixъ
dative	*gǫsijimъ	*gǫsijimъ	*gǫsijimъ
accusative	*gǫsę̇ję̇	*gǫsę̇ję̇	*gǫsaja
instrumental	*gǫsijimi	*gǫsijimi	*gǫsijimi
locative	*gǫsijixъ	*gǫsijixъ	*gǫsijixъ
vocative	*gǫsiji	*gǫsę̇ję̇	*gǫsaja

Descendants

East Slavic:
- Old East Slavic: *гѫсь (*gǫsĭ)
  - Old Ruthenian: гу́сїй (húsij)
    - Ukrainian: гу́сій (húsij)
South Slavic:
- Bulgarian: гъ́ши (gǎ́ši)
- Serbo-Croatian:
  Cyrillic script: гу̏сјӣ, гу̏сијӣ
  
  Latin script: gȕsjī, gȕsijī
- Slovene: gȏsji (tonal orthography)
West Slavic:
- Czech: husí
- Kashubian: gãsy
- Polabian: gǫsă, gǫsĕ
- Old Polish: gęsi
  - Polish: gęsi
  - Silesian: gyńsi
- Slovak: husí
- Slovincian: gãsy

References

^ Sławski, Franciszek, editor (2001), “gǫsьjь”, in Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic Dictionary] (in Polish), volume 8 (goda – gyža), Wrocław: Ossolineum, →ISBN, page 173
^ Trubachyov, Oleg, editor (1980), “*gǫsьjь”, in Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), numbers 7 (*golvačь – *gyžati), Moscow: Nauka, page 89

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

[2] 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.]

[3] Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia E. (2013) The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic‎^[2], Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi, →ISBN, page 193

[4] 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: “f. i (c) ‘goose’”

[5] Sławski, Franciszek, editor (2001), “gǫsьjь”, in Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic Dictionary] (in Polish), volume 8 (goda – gyža), Wrocław: Ossolineum, →ISBN, page 173

[6] Trubachyov, Oleg, editor (1980), “*gǫsьjь”, in Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), numbers 7 (*golvačь – *gyžati), Moscow: Nauka, page 89

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

Proto-Slavic

Etymology 1

Noun

Declension

Derived terms

Descendants

Further reading

References

Etymology 2

Adjective

Declension

Descendants

References