Re: [tied] schauen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] schauen


> > From: Piotr Gasiorowski [mailto:gpiotr@...]
>
> > I'm sceptical of deriving Slavic *x- from *sk-.
>
> What would you rather derive it from, then? Onomatopoeia plus Iranian
> influence (whether in the form of direct borrowing or phonoaesthetic
> preferences)?
>
> Segrei

That is a good question. How to explain all the x- words?
Some consider it might have developed either from sk via metathesis of ks
(e.g. Czech xvoji:, xrabry:) , or from k, g (xlad, xr^ta:n) as an expressive
changes. Iranian influence is a good idea I suppose. (PS *xvala is sometimes
explained as a loan from Iranian xvar- with Skythian or Alanian change of
r>l) And, of course, there are some words that are very easily explained as
loans, where x-<h- (e.g. Cz xvi:le, Pol. xvila < OHG hwi:la < IE *kwei-,
*kwi:- > OS *cila > OCz c^ila, c^i:la).

Can Piotr, please, give us explanation for words like:
1. Cz xr^adnout, Slk xradnu:t', Rus xrjadet' (???: < PS *xrEd- , where E is
a nasalized e, < ???)
2. Cz xvoji:, Pol xoja, R xvoja, Sln ho^ja, S/C xvoja (???: < PS *xvojI,
*xvoja < ???)
3. Cz xyba, Sln hiba etc. (???: < PS *chyba (n) < *chybati (v) < ???)

I wonder which of the above explanations Piotr agrees with. Or do you have
any better one, Piotr?

Petusek