Yesterday a difficult Hebrew word, today a Slavic one. I was looking up something else in my three-volume Russian-English dictionary when my eye fell on “усма́ ы́ f obs leather.” I’d never seen it before, and was of course curious, so I looked it up in Vasmer and found this lengthy but unsatisfying entry:
усма́ I “выделанная кожа”, диал. (Даль), усма́рь “кожевник”, др.-русск. усма ж., усмъ м. “кожа”, усмиѥ (ср. р.) — то же, усмарь “кожевник”, усмѣнъ “кожаный”, цслав. усма ж., усмъ м., наряду с др.-русск., цслав. усниѥ ср. р. “кожа”, усниянъ “кожаный”, уснѣнъ — то же, болг. усма́р “кожевник, дубильщик”, сербохорв. у̀смина “голенище”, словен. úsnjа ж., úsnjе “кожа”, чеш. usně ж. “кожа (дубленая)”, usnář “кожевник”. Форму usnьje объясняют из *usmnьje; см. Мейе, Ét. 428, 437. ‖ Существующие сближения неудовлетворительны; так, предполагали родство с обу́ть, о́бувь (Мi. ЕW 372, против см. Брандт, РФВ 25, 36), далее сравнивают (неудовлетворительно фонетически) с греч. εὕω “жгу” (*eusō), лат. ūrō, ussī, ustum “жечь, сушить”, др.-инд. ṓṣati “жжет”, др.-исл. usli м. “огонь” (Брандт, там же; Голуб–Копечный 404), кроме того, предполагали еще родство с греч. ἕννῡμι “одеваю”, др.-инд. vásanam “одежда”, vásman- “покрывало”, лат. vestis “одежда” (Горяев, ЭС 388 и сл.), а также со слав. udъ “член”, нов.-в.-н. Wade “икра ноги” (Миккола, IF 23, 127; RS 2, 248).
In other words, there are various Slavic words for ‘leather’ and ‘leatherworker’ (the Russian one is archaic and dialectal, but Slovenian usnje is the usual word for ‘leather’; the Church Slavic version occurs in Mark 1:6, where John the Baptist is described as wearing a leather belt: “Бѣ же Иоаннъ оболченъ власы велблужди, и поясъ усменъ о чреслѣхъ его…”) which have no clear cognates outside the family; Vasmer says some connect it with обу́ть ‘to put on shoes’ and (unsatisfying phonetically) with various descendants of PIE *h₁ews- ‘to burn’ or with descendants of PIE *wes- ‘to dress, clothe,’ not to mention Slavic udъ ‘limb, bodily member.’ I thought maybe a more recent source might have something more conclusive, or at least less scattershot, so I googled around and found L. V. Kurkina’s Лексические архаизмы родопского диалекта [Lexical archaisms of the Rhodope dialect], which has a paragraph on the word family:
В круг продолжений слав. *uѕnьје < *us-mnьје (с суф. -men- в нулевой ступени) из болгарского материала обычно включается производное уснар “кожевник”, между тем как родопские и соседствующие с ним говоры сохраняют более архаичные лексемы, еще не привлекавшие внимания этимологов. Это — родоп. осм’анка ‘брюшная часть у борова с очень тонким слоем жира’ (БД V, 194), пловдив. усм’анка ‘часть горловины и брюшины, с которых начинается разделка туши, предварительно опаленной на огне’ (БД І, 216), пирдоп. вѝсминка ‘мясо брюшной части у свиньи’ (БД IV, 93), тетов. висманца ‘чистое мясо, предназначенное для копчения’. Болгарские диалектизмы, производные от прил. *usměnъ (ср. др.-рус. усмѣнъ “кожаный’), несут в себе следы древней семантики, указывающей на первоначальное использование этой основы для обозначения чистой кожи с минимальным волосяным покровом. Такими природными свойствами обладала кожа брюшины, и именно из этой кожи изготовлялась обувь — опинци, о чем свидетельствует одно из диалектных описаний: обувь из свиной или говяжьей недубленой кожи забитого в доме скота. По всей видимости, *usměnъ — это обозначение брюшины и шире — кожи, полученной путем опаливания шкуры на огне. Как видим, в болгарских диалектизмах еще жива соотнесенность с конкретными особенностями обозначаемой ими реалии. По одной из этимологических версий слав. *uѕnьје сближается с тем рядом индоевропейских слов, который характеризует значение ‘жечь’: греч. εὕω ‘жгу’ < *euso, лат. ūrō, ussī, ustum ‘жечь, сушить’, др.-инд. ṓṣati ‘жжет’, др.-исл. uѕlі ‘огонь’. Современные славянские языки и диалекты, утратив представления о древней специалнзации таких названий, как *koža, *kъrzno, *uѕnьје, закрепили за словом *uѕnьје обозначение выделанной, дубленой кожи: ср. рус. усма́ ‘выделанная кожа’, с.-хорв, у̀смина ‘голенище’, чеш. usně ‘кожа (дубленая)’, болг. тетов. уса̀м ‘выработанная кожа, сафьян’.
This provides semantic support for the ‘shoe’ version, but otherwise basically repeats Vasmer. The whole thing awaits fuller investigation, so I’m providing this material for anyone who might want to have a go at it.
I thought it would be about this.
Somene proposed a funny etymology for ud based on:
po “along/across the surface” – pod “below”
na “on” – nad “above”
za “behind” – zad “hind [part]”, also butt.
pere “over” – pered “front”, also euphemistically about genitals.
u “at” – ?????
Why is no connection with us (“beard”/fuzz” related to e.g., Irish féasóg) suggested? This would be leather with cowhair left on. A belt made of this material would no doubt meet fhe approval of John the Baptist’s tailor, who could create a matching shirt with the hair inside, for the discerning consumer of wild honey and locusts and practitioner of mortification of the flesh!
tIn other words, there are various Slavic words for ‘leather’ and ‘leatherworker’ (the Russian one is archaic and dialectal, but Slovenian usnje is the usual word for ‘leather’
But “kozha” or variants of it, is also the word in Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak and BCSM. Did those languages borrow from Russian? (Polish uses “skóra” and Ukrianian “shkira”).
If anything Slovenian would seem to the archaic outlier, as it so often is.
Or am I confused and you are saying “usma” is archaic and dialectal (which it is), and Slovenian is the only Slavic language that has retained that word as the everyday word for leather? On re-reading I assume this is what you mean.
On re-reading I assume this is what you mean.
Yes.
It’s dialectal in Bulgarian, but not exclusively to the Rhodopes. Also кожа means skin in general, not just hide. Even in in the second quote, neither Pirdop nor Tetovo (which I assume the abbreviations refer to) are remotely close to the Rhodopes.
The local dialects do share features with some Rhodopian ones, though.
In evaluating the root etymology of the family of усмъ and усма, it is worth noting a possible additional comparandum that has become clearer since the treatments by Vasmer and Kurkina. Tocharian B neuter ewe ‘hide, leather’ can be taken from a PIE *Hou̯-os,*Hou̯-es-, formed from the same root *Heu̯- ‘put on (clothes, shoes)’ (Russian обуть ‘put (shoes) on’, Latin induō ‘put on’, Avestan aoθra- ‘shoe’, etc.) invoked by Vasmer and Kurkina.
However, to my knowledge, the details of the reconstruction of this root remain disputed. The Hittite verb unu- ‘adorn’ (< *‘make put on’, a Hittite causative in -nu-) is often associated to this root, and then the reconstruction of the initial laryngeal of the root depends on one’s views about the development of initial laryngeals in Anatolian.
The Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben gave the root as *h₂eu̯H- but doesn’t include Hittite unu- under this root (or anywhere else that I can find). Alvin Kloekhorst (Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, 2008, p. 918ff) reconstructed the root as *h₃eu̯- and took Hittite unu- from *h₃u-neu-, in accordance with his view that *h₃ was lost in Hittite before Indo-European resonants (here *u).
Melchert maintains the view that both initial *h₂ and initial *h₃ were generally preserved in Hittite as ḫ (see p. 10 here from 2015). So for him unu- requires a root *h₁eu̯- (with unu- < *h₁u-neu-; a *h₃u-neu- would have yielded a ḫunu- for him). Here is Douglas Q. Adams (A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and Greatly Enlarged, 2013) on Tocharian B ewe, following Melchert in reconstructing the root as *h₁eu̯-:
So the PIE reconstruction of the Tocharian can be further specified as originally *h₃eu̯-os, *h₃eu̯-es- (with coloration of *e to *o by *h₃) if we reconstruct the root as *h₃eu̯-, or as *h₁ou̯-os, *h₁ou̯-es- (with unexpected o-grade of the root in this formation) if we reconstruct it as*h₁eu̯-.
Returning to the Slavic family of усмъ and усма, there a is recent treatment according to the reconstruction of the root as h₃eu̯- by Tijmen Pronk, ‘Proto-Indo-European mn-stems in Balto-Slavic’, p. 318–326, in Norbert Oettinger und Thomas Steer, eds. (2014) Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. The article is here on academia.edu. The discussion, beginning on p. 319, is as follows:
Here is a link to the brief discussion of usma by Meillet that Pronk references.
Wow, what great stuff — many thanks!
PIE had an aversion to syllabic *m; instead of becoming syllabic, *m was dropped in the sequence -*Cmn-. This has been called “asnō law” or “asnō rule” after an Avestan word that shows it, though it seems to be ignored in Wikipedia.
-mn is fine a priori, but I’m not sure if variation in Slavic is a good argument for this reconstruction…
David : think about words for “smile” and ‘lips” and “many”. I think that’s what dravsi means.
Or maybe not, now that I think about it. I thought it was a reference to using human skin as hide like in Iceland.
I have no idea. I’m talking about historical phonology…
I was reading an earlier thread but I closed the tab, but apparently “shaman” might be cognate with срам and/or “shame” in the sense of being demure, shaman being ultimately from Sanskrit. Also “covering”. I’m on my phone but I’ll check it tomorrow again.
Edit: as in same PIE root, and shaman a borrowing from Sanskrit via Sogdian.