# Slavic KNZ (prince)



## CyrusSH

In different Slavic languages _knieza_, _knez_, _knize_, _knyaz_, ... means "prince", could it be from Iranian _kian-za_ (son of the king)?

It can be interesting to look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_family_name_affixes (Family name affixes are a clue for family name etymology and can sometimes determine the ethnic origin of a person. This is a partial list of affixes.)


----------



## Ben Jamin

CyrusSH said:


> In different Slavic languages _knieza_, _knez_, _knize_, _knyaz_, ... means "prince", could it be from Iranian _kian-za_ (son of the king)?
> 
> It can be interesting to look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_family_name_affixes (Family name affixes are a clue for family name etymology and can sometimes determine the ethnic origin of a person. This is a partial list of affixes.)


No, the Slavic word "knez/knyaz/knize/ksiaze" has its origin in early Germanic "kuningaz".
"Kuningaz" developed in the Germanic languages into "king/konge/konung/könig", and in Finnish into "kuningas"


----------



## CyrusSH

Ben Jamin said:


> No, the Slavic word "knez/knyaz/knize/ksiaze" has its origin in early Germanic "kuningaz".
> "Kuningaz" developed in the Germanic languages into "king/konge/konung/könig", and in Finnish into "kuningas"



Both of them could from Avestan *kauui-*, as you read here: https://books.google.com/books?id=r...=onepage&q=avestan kauui ruler priest&f=false this Avestan word means both "king" and "priest", in the Slavic languages it has the second meaning too.


----------



## fdb

I hope people realise that the /n/ in Middle Persian kay-ān is part of the plural suffix. The root is kay from Avestan kauui-, Sanskrit kavi-.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> I hope people realise that the /n/ in Middle Persian kay-ān is part of the plural suffix. The root is kay from Avestan kauui-, Sanskrit kavi-.



The fact is that there were some legendary people who called themselves *kauui* and ruled over our primal ancestors, we call them the kings ("kauuian" or "kian"), they were actually our god-appointed kings, so most of Iranian kings claimed to be descendants of them.

Accroding to Oxford dictionary, "-ing" suffix can indicate "a thing belonging to or having the quality of", so Germanic _Kuning_ could mean a person who belongs to this royal family. Salvic _KNZ_ can have the same meaning too.


----------



## berndf

The root _kun-_ means _family, race, clan_. A _*kun-ing-az_ is a _leader of a clan_.

As fdb said, the _-n_ in part of the root in Germanic but not in Persian.



CyrusSH said:


> so Germanic _Kuning_ *could *mean...


It is not acceptable methodology to string together as many purely speculative and far fetched ideas until you arrive at the conclusion you had in your mind when before you started and than take this as support of your idea. With this method you can generate "evidence" for virtually any idea. By this method, proponents of the Sun Theory have shown that practically every word in the every language, dead or alive, *could* be reconstructed from Turkic root. This is true but completely meaningless.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> The root _kun-_ means _family, race, clan_. A _*kun-ing-az_ is a _leader of a clan_.
> 
> As fdb said, the _-n_ in part of the root in Germanic but not in Persian.
> 
> It is not acceptable methodology to string together as many purely speculative and far fetched ideas until you arrive at the conclusion you had in your mind when before you started and than take this as support of your idea. With this method you can generate "evidence" for virtually any idea. By this method, proponents of the Sun Theory have shown that practically every word in the every language, dead or alive, *could* be reconstructed from Turkic root. This is true but completely meaningless.



We are talking about languages which certainly relate to each other, a theory similar to the Sun Theory is that I say all Iranian words have just Iranian origins or you say all words in the Germanic languages have just Germanic origins. 

Of course if someone can prove that for example Slavic sun god *Hors* has a Slavic origin and it doesn't relate to Iranian word for sun (Xor) then I should believe it but you can't say the Slavic word can't be from the Iranian one just because it has a "s" at the end.


----------



## ahvalj

Slavic speakers don't perceive this word as derived: it is just a term, "prince" or "priest", depending on the language. The latter meaning must be secondary, it is found only in Polish (_ksiądz_); interestingly, Lithuanian has the word _kunigas_ "priest", borrowed from the Middle Low German _kunig_ "king" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kuning#Descendants_2) but changed in meaning after the Polish word (the derived _kunigaikštis _still means "prince").

In early Slavic texts (Old Church Slavonic, 10–11th centuries), the word "prince, duke" looks like _kъnęʣь_ (_ъ_ and _ь_ being back and front high reduced vowels, _ę_ being a nasalized _e_). The sound _ʣ_ at that time was very new (and, as the future has shown, short-lived, preserved to date only in Macedonian and Polish) and in all cases it originated from the former _g_ as a result of the Slavic second (before the new _e_ and _i_) or third (after the former _i,_ as in this word, _ę<*in_) palatalizations. This word also has a feminine counterpart _kъnęgyni _"princess", where the original _g_ remains before the non-front vowel.

There are several -_ęʣь_ words in Old Church Slavonic, all having no Slavic etymology but resembling the Germanic words, like _kъnęʣь _"prince, duke"_— kuning-,_ _penęʣь_ "penny" — _penning-_ and _vitęʣь_ "knight" — _víkingR._ In coeval Old East Slavic, there occur several words with _g _preserved, like _varägъ_ "Varangian" — _væring- _(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians) and _kъlbägъ_ "Kylfing" — _kylfing-_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylfings).


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> We are talking about languages which certainly relate to each other, a theory similar to the Sun Theory is that I say all Iranian words have just Iranian origins or you say all words in the Germanic languages have just Germanic origins.


Look, all of what I said about the *_kuningaz_ is available everywhere, in wiktionary, etymonline, you name it. Yet you come with a baseless "could be" based on a vague similarity, which aren't really even so similar, if you take fdb's warning seriously (which you even quoted). That means you look only at your pet theory and ignore all other information, even if presented on a silver plate. This is simply not acceptable methodology.


CyrusSH said:


> Of course if someone can prove that for example Slavic sun god *Hors* has a Slavic origin and it doesn't relate to Iranian word for sun (Xor) then I should believe it but you can't say the Slavic word can't be from the Iranian one just because it has a "s" at the end.


No, this is not how things work! It is not everything by default derived from Iranian unless you prove otherwise. If you think they are related then you prove it.

Even demonstrably related languages are full of by-chance similarities. E.g. Latin _hab-ere_ and German _hab-en_ (_-ere_ and _-en_ are regular infinitive ending) mean exactly the same and look very similar, the stems are spelled identically. Yet the two are completely unrelated. Latin _habere _is related to German _geben _and German _haben _is related to Latin _capere_.


----------



## yezik

as *

ahvalj*
In early Slavic texts (Old Church Slavonic, 10–11th centuries), the word "prince, duke" looks like _*kъnęʣь*_ (_ъ_ and _ь_ being back and front high reduced vowels, _ę_ being a nasalized _e_). The sound _ʣ_ at that time was very new (and, as the future has shown, short-lived, preserved to date only in Macedonian and Polish) and in all cases it originated from the former _g_ as a result of the Slavic second (before the new _e_ and _i_) or third (after the former _i,_ as in this word, _ę<*in_) palatalizations. This word also has a feminine counterpart _*kъnęgyni *_"princess", where the original _g_ remains before the non-front vowel.
____________________
Can you explain "trans". - *ʣь - g. As far I know  Dz - is a typical stuff in Belorussia, Den - Dzen.
But G in kъnęgyni - is a result of famous double meanings of G, nothing more. Cause Russian Z is very close to ж? Knia ж e, - Knia ж na...*


----------



## ahvalj

The Belarusian _ʣʲ _is centuries younger. The same shift_ dʲ>ʣʲ/ʤ_ occurred in several adjacent languages, like Polish, Lower Sorbian, dialectal Lithuanian and substandard Russian.

I am not aware of the famous double meanings of _g_.

The Vocative Singular _kъnęže_ (if it is what you mean) has _ž_ from the first palatalization (which affected _k, g_ and _x_ before front vowels — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_first_palatalization), likewise the adjective _kъnęžьskъ_ "prince's, княжеский", whereas the Nominative Singular _kъnęʣь_ has _ʣ_ from the third palatalization, which occurred much later, a century or two before the first Slavic texts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Progressive_palatalization). Compare the Old East Slavic Nominative Singular _varägъ _(without the third palatalization) vs. the Vocative Singular _varäže_ and the adjective _varäžьskъ,_ both with the first palatalization (it actually occurred before these words were borrowed, but the loanwords were adapted to the existing patterns, like in modern Russian _unlo*ck*_ → _разло*ч*ить_).

*P. S. *The modern _княжна/knʲažna_ comes from the Old East Slavic _кънѧжьна/kъnäžьna,_ where _g>ž_ regularly before a front vowel (_ь<*i_).

*P. P. S.* The third palatalization was inconsistent in Slavic. Russian has a famous example: _льгота—польза—нельзя_ all come from the same root _*lig-,_ but without the third palatalization in the first case, with the Church Slavonic _g>ʣʲ>ʣ>z_ in the second, and with the East Slavic _g>ʣʲ>zʲ _in the third (the latter word has a Belarusian counterpart _нельга_ without the third palatalization).


----------



## yezik

, like in modern Russian _unlo*ck*_ → _разло*ч*ить_).



Thanks for refs.. I really need it.  " Progressive_palatalization."
__________ 
You said:  """like in modern Russian _unlo*ck*_ → _разло*ч*ить_)."" ??? 
Hard to hear such terrible news from "modern Russian".. I've already herd  on TV "Deratizatsia" and  "randomnye primery".. They are realy "locked") - Loco(s).
_льгота—польза—нельзя_ all come from the same root _*lig-,""  ... льзя - license._
__________
What about *W*arranty and *G*uaranty. Gard (gardien) or Warag (Vrag). Vado   - Gado (guide)?
Is it the same story?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Look, all of what I said about the *_kuningaz_ is available everywhere, in wiktionary, etymonline, you name it. Yet you come with a baseless "could be" based on a vague similarity, which aren't really even so similar, if you take fdb's warning seriously (which you even quoted). That means you look only at your pet theory and ignore all other information, even if presented on a silver plate. This is simply not acceptable methodology.



Before fdb, I myself had said that the original word is *kauui*, you probably thought that the plural suffix "-n" is similar to "-s" suffix in English, but it should be said by fdb that it forms nouns with plural meanings in Persian, so about the word "kian", we have _kiani_ (royal) or popular personal names, like Kianoush, compare to Darioush (Darius), ... You said "the root kun- means family, race, clan", so it is also a noun with a plural meaning too.



> No, this is not how things work! It is not everything by default derived from Iranian unless you prove otherwise. If you think they are related then you prove it.



Why should I prove it when Slavic linguists have done it?

http://myths.kulichki.net/enc/item/f00/s37/a003769.shtml
http://feb-web.ru/feb/slovoSS/SS-abc/ss6/ss6-1291.htm?cmd=0



> Even demonstrably related languages are full of by-chance similarities. E.g. Latin _hab-ere_ and German _hab-en_ (_-ere_ and _-en_ are regular infinitive ending) mean exactly the same and look very similar, the stems are spelled identically. Yet the two are completely unrelated. Latin _habere _is related to German _geben _and German _haben _is related to Latin _capere_.



Of course I know about sound changes, but I'm talking about loanwords here.


----------



## ahvalj

_Хърсъ/Xъrsъ_ is indeed inexplicable on the Slavic ground and is often believed to be a Scytho-Sarmatian loanword, along with some other names of deities, and along with the Slavic word for "god" itself (_богъ/bogъ_ — in addition to semantic reasons, the expected Old Church Slavonic outcome of the PIE *_bʰogos _would be **_bagъ _since *_o_ should have lengthened _*o>*ō>*ā>a_ before a non-aspirated voiced stop, cp. _*nogʷos>nagъ_ "naked" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter's_law).

The problem is that science works with reproducible results: even loanwords, to be analyzable, should conform certain laws of phonetic and morphological substitutions. It can happen, of course, that a certain word (loaned or even inherited) behaved oddly, but, unless this behavior is directly attested,_ science has no tools to deal with such erratic phenomena._ So, to substantiate your ideas about some special relationships between Iranic and Germanic languages, you shouldn't bring forth random words of uncertain provenance and relationships: instead, you should present (like historical linguistics did at its dawn) a number of firm correspondences in the basic vocabulary. There have been countless enthusiasts worldwide fighting against the "official science": in most cases, their time and efforts turn out to have been spent in vain since such people are unable to present a working and predictive scenario.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Of course I know about sound changes, but I'm talking about loanwords here.


Which makes it even worse.



CyrusSH said:


> Why should I prove it when Slavic linguists have done it?


We are not discussing _xors_ here. What I am criticizing is that you jump to conclusions that everything that sound half way similar to a Persian word is automatically a Persian loan and you are not trying to establish it is but that your reasoning is _if it isn't totally impossible that it a Persian loan then it must be one_. That is simply not acceptable.


CyrusSH said:


> You said "the root kun- means family, race, clan", so it is also a noun with a plural meaning too.


Again a completely baseless generalization. From the fact that there is a plural ending _-n_ you cannot infer the _-n_ in the Germanic stem _kun-_ is one as well. With such careless reasoning you can "prove" virtually anything. I am sure you find for every consonant a plural ending that contains it if you look at sufficiently many languages. Even the fact that Germanic languages have _-n_ plurals does not make _kun-_ containing a plural suffix. All that we can say with some confidence is that the _n_ existed already in the PIE root and that's it.


----------



## CyrusSH

The original word could be from Germanic, Avestan _kauui_ refers to first God's creature who ruled over the world, in the Germanic mythology, it was actually a cow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Búri

She licked the ice-blocks, which were salty; and the first day that she licked the blocks, there came forth from the blocks in the evening a man's hair; the second day, a man's head; the third day the whole man was there.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kine&allowed_in_frame=0

*kine* (n.)
    archaic plural of cow, a double plural (compare children) or genitive plural of Middle English kye "cows," from Old English cy (genitive cyna), plural of cu "cow."


----------



## berndf

It can either be a loan from Germanic *_kuningaz _or any of that. Not both. You would have first to dis-prove the current consensus view (that it is a Germanic loan from *_kuningaz_) before it makes sense to walk down that road.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> It can either be a loan from Germanic *_kuningaz _or any of that. Not both. You would have first to dis-prove the current consensus view (that it is a Germanic loan from *_kuningaz_) before it makes sense to walk down that road.



I believe all things which we read about the etymologies of words are just based on possibilities, the important point is that we should consider all possibilities and shouldn't ignore any possible thing, so I usually say "it could be ...", not "it is ...".

What I see is that most of Iranian origin words have been ignored by European linguists, for example I have never seen anywhere which says the word "dutch" etymologically can be related to Persian _tude_ (people): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/توده#Persian

Anyway I still believe that the Slavic word could be a Scytho-Sarmatian loanword, there are similar words in other Iranian languages and for thousands years Scythians and Sarmatians lived in the same region where Slavic people already live, another important point is that the meaning of "priest" just exists in the Iranian and Slavic languages, not Germanic one.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I believe all things which we read about the etymologies of words are just based on possibilities, the important point is that we should consider all possibilities and shouldn't ignore any possible thing, so I usually say "it could be ...", not "it is ...".


Like all science historical linguistics is about eliminating wrong possibilities in order to find out what is true and not merely possible.


CyrusSH said:


> What I see is that most of Iranian origin words have been ignored by European linguists, for example I have never seen anywhere which says the word "dutch" etymologically can be related to Persian _tude_ (people): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/توده#Persian


Comparative linguistics has benn a heavily researched field for 250 years now and that is also about the time we have known about the IE language group. You can be quite sure that no halfway sensible possibility has been "ignored" but if it doesn't occur in dictionaries than because it has been considered and discarded, so in this case. For the PIE reconstruction of _þeod_ (the root of _Dutch_), *_tewtéh₂_, you find a pertaining comment quoted in _Wiktionary_.


----------

