Here are some basic concepts that we should think about.

Suavic “Yes” = Dag

What is the etymology of the Polish “tak” and the Russian “da” or really any Suavic word meaning “yes”? Let’s take a look.

Neither Brueckner (Polish) nor Vasmer (Russian) really say but… there are hints.

The most obvious hint is that the Polish “t” corresponds to the Russian “d”. Another hint is that the Polish has a “k” at the end but the Russian has nothing. If the Polish is a softening of the original then the original, would have been “dag”. The Russian dropped the “g”. The Polish, on the other hand, turned the d > t and the g > k.

Vasmer mentions a theory of Trautmann’s which seems to connect the Suavic “da” to the IE word for “give.” This, however, approximates the meaning of Dažbog/Dadzbog as well as, importantly, of Dagon. Dagon (Hebrew דָּגוֹן, Akkadian Dagān) is described as the Syrian/Canaantite god of seed, vegetation, and crops. The theory connecting Dagon with fish is, well, more fishy.

Interestingly, “da Bóg” or “Bóg da” may be understood as expressions of affirmation. Dažbog/ Dadzbog was, as we know, identified with the Sun.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Before we get to the Sun and its days, let’s take a look at the affirmative concepts in Teutonic & Baltic languages.

---

Teutonic/Baltic “Yes” = Ja 

In turn, in Germanic, “yes” is obviously a form of the affirming adverb. However, the English version traces itself to “gea” as proposed by the Online Etymological Dictionary:

Old English gise, gese “so be it!,” probably from gea, ge “so” (see yea) + si “be it!,” from Proto-Germanic *sijai-, from PIE *si-, optative stem of root *es- “to be.” Originally stronger than simple yea. Used in Shakespeare mainly as an answer to negative questions. As a noun from 1712. Yes-man is first recorded 1912, American English.

This “to be” connection also suggests, though admittedly weakly, an Æsir connection.

What about “yeah”?

Old English gea (West Saxon), ge (Anglian) “so, yes,” from Proto-Germanic *ja-, *jai-, a word of affirmation (source also of German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish ja), from PIE *yam-, from pronominal stem *i- (see yon). As a noun, “affirmation, affirmative vote,” from early 13c.

This, curiously, corresponds to Deities such as the Egyptian Moon God Ya and the Canaanite Yarikh and, of course, Jarilo.

Here the Teutonic languages are joined by the Baltic in that we have the Lithuanian jo (yaw) (though also taip (tuyp)), the Latvian and Old Prussian jā. 

---

Leaving, affirmations aside, let’s ask now about the words for “day”.

Suavic/Baltic “Day” = Dan

In Suavic, “day” is “dzień” (Polish) or “den‘” (Russian) or “dan” (Slovene, Croatian, Serbian). The “dan” suspiciously looks like “don” meaning simply “don” or “lord”. Dunaj, while being the Suavic word for the Danube is also the word for streams more generally and, as we know, the Suavs worshipped rivers.

Here the Suavic is joined by Baltic languages. Thus, the Baltic cognates include Lithuanian dienà (“day”), Latvian dìena (“day”), Old Prussian dēinā (“day”) (accusative singular, deinan).

---

Teutonic “Day” = Dag

In order to look at the Teutonic words for “day” we have to come full circle and revert back to the word dag with which we started the discussion above (showing that it refers in Suavic to the “yes” concept).

For example, the German word for day is simply “tag”. Let’s turn to English and the Online Etymology Dictionary which says this for “day”:

Old English dæg “period during which the sun is above the horizon,” also “lifetime, definite time of existence,” from Proto-Germanic *dages- “day” (source also of Old Saxon, Middle Dutch, Dutch dag, Old Frisian di, dei, Old High German tag, German Tag, Old Norse dagr, Gothic dags), according to Watkins, from PIE root *agh- “a day.”  He adds that the Germanic initial d- is “of obscure origin.” But Boutkan says it is from PIE root *dhegh- “to burn” (see fever). Not considered to be related to Latin dies (which is from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine”).

And so we are back with the concepts of Dagon, Dažbog/Dadzbog & so forth.

It would thus seem that:

• Suavic language took an IE word/concept and interpreted it as “yes”: dag > tak or da
• Germanic languages turned the same IE word/concept into “day”: dag > day

Of course, these topics are quite difficult and am quite sure that professional linguists have entirely convincing explanations for the above which do not invoke any divine names or concepts.

Finally, here are some more ruminations on the topic.

Copyright ©2020 jassa.org All Rights Reserved