Re: *Twah-

> Oh, it might be just an accident, but in Czech, there is a strange
> expression, considered to be of onom.-expr. origin, which I

consider very

> similar:
>
> c^vaxat (or c^va:xat, c^vaxtat) "to squelch, to slush, to splash

about"

> (influenced by ca:kat of sim. meaning), to bath or bathe (dimin.)"

and it is

> also strictly used in connection with the body.
>
> Torsten, could it possibly be a loan from a Germanic source?

OPruss. twaxtan

> seems even more similar.
>
> There is another, rather dialectal, form: c^van^hat
>
> I can imagine something like c^van^h- < Goth. twahan, but I may be

wrong.

> Palatal /c^/ and /n^/ might be expressive forms of original /c/

and /n/,

> thus c^van^h- < *cvanh- < **cvahan (via metat.), < twahan...? Just

a few

> ideas...
>

Actually, I should have written 'þwahan'; I used /T/ for /þ/. But,
anyway, if it's a wanderword, we should assume it was something like
*twah-, thus loaned into Germanic pre-Grimm. I wouldn't know of any
Czech loans from (Proto-?)Germanic that had *þw- > *c^w-; you would
know that better. A loan from pre-Germanic *tw- > *c^w- seems more
reasonable.
The -n- of the dialectal form may be a present stem n-infix.
I should note that since Møller thinks the words are IE-Semitic
cognates, it should follow the general correspondence rules he has
set up, thus he has IE *twa:- ~ Semitic d-w-H-. The -h- (< PIE -k-)
therefore becomes a suffix added in IE. If it's a loan, the demand
for common rules is not there, so there might a direct
correspondence NWEurope IE -k- ~ Semitic -H-.

Torsten