Re: [tied] Slavic "lada"

Me:

>> And what about a possibility to be connected with <sklad> itself?
>> sklad < *sU-kladU, cf. R. klast' "to put, to lay (down)" < *klasti <
>> *kladti. In present R. klast' is conjugated as kladu, kladëš, kladët

etc.,

>> but the
>> future tense is: po-lož-u etc. Here po- is a prefix, and the root is lož-
><
>> *log-. Cf. po-laga-t' "to consider, to think", with the long grade of the
>> root vowel, and the different thematic vowel; osnovo-polagat' "to lay the
>> foundation". More examples: s-klad-yva-ju "I am putting together" (with
>the
>> same prefix as in <sklad>, and a frequentative suffix), fut. s-lož-u. It
>is
>> not clear if the contemporary suppletive roots klad- and log-/lag- can
>> historically represent the same root, but if so, <lad> could be connected
>> with them as well. And, of course, we must remember that historically
>> log-/lag- is nothing but a causative/transitive from ležat' "to lie, to

be

>> situated"...
>

Petusek:

>Well, yes, I have also considered that possibility (with similar words in
>Czech). PS *klasti (<*klad-ti) can be connected to Lith. klo~das "layer",
>klóti "to lay over, to spread" and Goth. hla?an, German laden "load" (OE
>hladan) < the first part being IE *kla:-
>The future tense, however, is from a different root, it is just a different
>ablaut of the IE root *legh-.
>So, now, we can compare the two roots *kla:- and *legh-/*logh- and not see
>any apparent similarity, but:
>
>(perhaps, some external - Nostratic? - parallels could help us)
>We may hypothesize and speculate about the -lV- element and ask if PS *ladU
>(IE *la:-?), IE *kla:- (**-la:-???) and IE *legh- (**lV-gh-?) have

something

>in common and what, if so.

Even without Nostratic...
Let's assume that *legh- < *le-gh-, where *-gh- is an ancient suffix. Let
there be another form with a different suffix *-H2- (a laringeal).
Afterwards, *le-H2- forms the causative *lo-H2- > *la:-. Then *k-la:- must
includ a prefix that may be of the same origin that PS *kU "to". The latter
would be here just in its place, wouldn't it? The idea to put something _to_
somewhere seems to be clear...

>
>That something does not exist cannot be claimed just because it has has not
>been found yet :-)

Yes, but remember Occam's razor... We must not invent something with no
known traces! ;-)

==========
Vadim Ponaryadov