Sorry, everyone, about my responses being few and delayed. I'm still without
an Internet connection at home, and as for my time at work, the less said,
the better: I'll have to go to a series of ten MA examinations in a moment,
I'll chair some BA exams tomorrow, there'll be two PhD defences on
Wednesday, etc.
What worries me about Slavic x = non-Slavic sk is the paucity of
extra-Balto-Slavic evidence. How do we know that the sk- in Baltic is itself
original (rather than, say, of metathetic origin < *ks-, as apparently in
the root of *sku- < *ks(e)u- 'shave, scrape')? We find x- ~ sk- even within
Slavic, as in *skrobati 'scratch' ~ *xrobotati 'make scratching noises', but
this is a special phenomenon, limited to expressive roots. Some cases of *x-
may really be Iranianisms (I wrote about *xoNtI 'will, intention', *xotjoN ~
*xUtjoN 'want' not so long ago); some may be due to RUKI effects in sandhi
(as in *xoditi 'walk, move', *s^IdlU 'went', etc., which may possibly
represent the generalised consonantism of prefixations with *pri-, *u-,
*per-, etc.). As for *xovati, there have been unconvincing attempts to
relate it to Iranian *hawa- < *sewo- 'one's own'; but a connection with
*skeuh1- is hardly attractive either, not being supported by anything except
a vaguely possible root equation. Frankly, I don't know where the word comes
from.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: Petr Hrubis
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] schauen
That's it, Sergei, I didn't want to mention the Lith counterparts to let
Piotr find his own explanation himself.
Piotr, as soon as you find any better explanation, please, let us know. We
are hungry to know it.
Petusek
P.S.: Reading my comments, I realize they might sound a bit ironical - they
have never meant to be, Piotr. I really am hungry to know what you think
about the x-out-of-sk issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sergejus Tarasovas
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: [tied] schauen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergejus Tarasovas [mailto:S.Tarasovas@...]
> Taking into account Lith. <skuj�> 'id.', isn't it tempting at
> least in this case to derive PSl. *x- from *sk-?
Also OCS xleNbI 'waterfall' and Lith. (Z^em.) sklem~bti 'slide aside, slide
down' (an example from DLKZ^: k�d sklem~be: roge~le:s, v�s neapvir~tome
'when a sledge slid aside, we all but got upset').
Sergei