Re: [tied] schauen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] schauen


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>> How do we know that the sk- in Baltic is itself
>> original...

> Probably comparing the word in question with words found in other IE
> languages. What's wrong about comparing Lith. <skuj�>, Latv. (pl.)
> <skujas> 'fir/pine-needle' with OIr. <sce:>, Welsh
> <ysbyddad> 'hawthorn' and the other Celtic stuff in Pokorny under
> *sk(h)woj- (*skw�:is, G. *skuj�s as per EIEC)?

EIEC assumes a new o-grade (no explanation provided) and metathesis in
Slavic (as if < *kswojah2) to account for *xvoja. All right, the Baltic
cluster seems to be original, but the relationship between *skuja- and
*xvoja is still unclear.

>> ...(rather than, say, of metathetic origin < *ks-, as apparently in
>> the root of *sku- < *ks(e)u- 'shave, scrape')?

> Pokorny, for one, derives <sk�sti> 'shave' from *ske:u(-t)-. He could
> well be wrong, but is "apparently" the right word in that respect?

Well, Pokorny has the word under *kes- (*ks-eu-) as well: "hierher wohl mit
Metathese balt. *skuu_o: 'rasiere' in lett. skuvu, sku~t, lit. skut�, sk�sti
ds."

Piotr