petusek <
petusek@...> wrote:
>The PS verb *laditi (be in an accord, be
>tuned up, tune up, order and sim.) is sometimes derived from *lagoditi (Cz
>lahodit "taste excellent", "be enjoable", and sim.) via haplology, i.e.
>*lagoditi > *laditi, (there is an adj lahodny' "delicious" in Czech). But
>this is just one of several considered possibilities.
No haplology can exist here, because such a process develops only when there
exists two similar syllables side by side, and this is not the case. And if
no haplology, then what is the reason for the shortening? If it were a word
used extremely frequently, this could cause the shortening by itself, but
this is not the case either, I think.
>Another reconstructions starts with *ladU < *la:-dho- from the pronominal
>element *la and the reduced form of the IE root *dhe: "to lay (down), put,
>etc." (cf. Czech <bez ladu a skladu> "in a total disarray, disorder".
And what about a possibility to be connected with <sklad> itself?
sklad < *sU-kladU, cf. R. klast' "to put, to lay (down)" < *klasti <
*kladti. In present R. klast' is conjugated as kladu, kladëš, kladët etc.,
but the
future tense is: po-lož-u etc. Here po- is a prefix, and the root is lož- <
*log-. Cf. po-laga-t' "to consider, to think", with the long grade of the
root vowel, and the different thematic vowel; osnovo-polagat' "to lay the
foundation". More examples: s-klad-yva-ju "I am putting together" (with the
same prefix as in <sklad>, and a frequentative suffix), fut. s-lož-u. It is
not clear if the contemporary suppletive roots klad- and log-/lag- can
historically represent the same root, but if so, <lad> could be connected
with them as well. And, of course, we must remember that historically
log-/lag- is nothing but a causative/transitive from ležat' "to lie, to be
situated"...
> Machek
>thinks Rus./Ukr. <lado> is secondary, being derived from f. <lada>, as he,
>moreover, claims it is an old Black-sea, Asia Minor loan. But he does not
>explain where it is from, which non-IE languages it is present in, that is
a
>pity...what is your opinion, Vadim?
Without knowing what Machek says more deeply, it is difficult to give any
conclusion... I can only tell some very common thoughts on the subject. If
the similarity of Slav. <lada> and some words of other languages were
strict, this could be a proof of borrowing (either into Slavic or from it)
by itself. But really, it is not the case, and the words of other languages
that are presumably connected have great differences bouth in phonetics and
meaning (as it is with Gr. Leto and Lat. Latona, for example). Therefore, to
consider Slav.<lada> a loan, we have not only to find out a hypothetical
source, but also to understand why it had been borrowed, and why such
semantical and phonetical shifts had place. For example, borrowing from Leto
and Latona is so disprooved, because if Slaves borrowed the name of a
goddess, it hardly could develop the meaning present in Slavic languages.
==========
Vadim Ponaryadov