>In fact here should be schlaff, Schlaf, schlapp, Schlampe and
>even Lippe and Lappe, etc.
Well, then you should've mentioned these... Labb(e)rigkeiten,
and not schlabb(e)rig and its family. :)
>It seems to me this is the same in Rom. we have once without
>prefix "lab-" with the sense of becoming large, and we have
>prefixed with "s" the sense of weak. See Rom. "slab"
>(principal sense =weak)
<labarTat> and <slab> seem to be quasi isolated in the
Romanian lexical landscape. But why do these two words
attract your attention after all? What's special about them?
>It happen i just don't know the meanings of Slavic
>"slabU" and its actualy reflexes.
slab "weak; slim," slugã "serf," slãninã/slanã "lard,
bacon" Had these been pre-Slavic, than they would've
looked like this: *schiab/scheab, *schiugã, *schian(in)ã -
or even with [Sk] or [St]: *Stiab/Steab...
A bizarre phenomenon is that in some regions, the
native-speakers' "gusto" is such that they feel like enhancing
the initial cluster by adding a [k]: <sclab, scluga, sclan(in)a.>
Should this be interpreted as a reminiscence of the... feeling,
according to which the [sl-vowel-] cluster is perceived by
the Romance lang. world as unnatural? I don't know.
BTW, in Polish, in all three, AFAIK, the [l] > [w]. So, why should
such a transition be forbidden in neaua, steaua, viTeaua,
purceaua? :o)
>Alex
George