Re: [tied] Re: *Twah-

----- Original Message -----

>From: tgpedersen
>To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:02 PM
>Subject: [tied] 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,

I should have realized that.

>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 initial c^v- cluster is extremely rare in Czech - in fact, the few words
above are the only expressions I am aware of that have c^v- in Czech.
Comparison to other assumed *þw- > *c^w- loans is thus impossible :-(. A
loan from pre-Germanic *tw- > *c^w- seems more reasonable, indeed. Initial
c^- < Germanic z-/t- is quite rare, too. The only examples I know: c^uba <
MHG zu:pe (today Zaupe "bitch") and c^inz^e < MHG zins (< Lat ce:nsus). c^v-
is really weird, we have cv- in Czech < OHG/MHG/HG zw- (e.g. Zweck > cvek),
which is also rare in Czech. I always wondered why all the Czech etym.
dictionaries claimed c^vaxat, c^vaxtat and c^van^hat were were of
onomat.origin, as they are the only words which have this strange
consonantal cluster, and now, knowing of þwahan etc., loans seem clear to
me.

>The -n- of the dialectal form may be a present stem n-infix.

Oh yes, a better explanation, perhaps.

>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