Re: [tied] schauen

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

>
> ----- 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. <skujà>, Latv. (pl.)
> > <skujas> 'fir/pine-needle' with OIr. <sce:>, Welsh
> > <ysbyddad> 'hawthorn' and the other Celtic stuff in Pokorny under
> > *sk(h)woj- (*skwé:is, G. *skujós 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 <skùsti> '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.

skutù, skùsti

> ds."
>

What's the deal with West Germanic (except Frisian) *sk- > *sx- > *s^-
? It doesn't seem to related to anything (*sp- and *st- stay
unchanged) or conditioned by anything. What happened? Is it related
to the above problem in some substrately way? A new "Temematic"?

Torsten