--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> I absolutely agree. It's neither possible nor desirable to explain
_all_ Slavic word-initial *x's as Iranianisms, and most cases of *xr-
must be variants of *skr- (whether "expressive" or due to a not-
completely-successful sound change (resembling the things that
happened to *sk- in Germanic). I only singled out *xromU for special
treatment because it's hard to resist the spectacular comparison with
Skt. sra:ma and Germanic lam-. Wouldn't it be lovely if Slavic
*xromU 'lame' and *lomiti 'break' proved to be ultimately related via
*(s)lom-?
>
It's also tempting to derive, eg, *xod- :*s^Id- 'walk,go' from *sed-
'sit' > 'move sitting in a vagon', and, if I recall, other (few)
examples of possible *s- (not only *sk-) > *x- do exist.
Sergei