Re: [tied] Slavic "lada"

From: "Âŕäčě Ďîíŕđ˙äîâ" <ponaryad@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 8:26 PM
Subject: 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...

Yes, I can imagine that.

>
> >
> >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! ;-)

Of course not :-)

>
> ==========
> Vadim Ponaryadov