Re: [tied] Re: RUKI and hypothetical ks- > sk- metathesis in BS

>> I've encountered a few Slavic words beginning in /x/. Some
>> dictionaries
>> hypothesize about possible ks- > sk- (or vice versa) metatheses.
> Can
>> somebody possibly help me? What are the pros and cons? Thanks for
> any > help
>> or comments.
>
>
>
> I have encountered 2 Romanian words reflecting this situation:
>
>
> 1. Rom. hruba 'underground cavity'
> http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=hruba&source(considered by DEX from
> ucr. 'hruba')
>
> I linked this word with Rom. SCORBURA and Alb. ZHGËRBONJIE.
> http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=scorbura&source
> In my opinion all of them represent one and the same word: Dacian
> *skurba-)
>
> So the original (Dacian?) word seems to be *skurba- and based on
> Proto-Albanian - Dacian transformations: *sk- > *ks- > *h- (see also
> Albanians hije < PAlb. skija: 'shadow'; hënë < PAlb. skanda: 'moon' ;
> hi < PAlb. s-kina: 'ash') we obtained the word *hurba.
>
> Next my hypothesis is that this word was borrowed by the Slavs as
> *hurba from the Dacian tribes at the North of what is today Romania,
> around 500-700 BC. After the Slavic Metathesis teh Slavic word
> arrives to be : *hruba -> next borrowed by Romanians in this form.
>
> 2. The Second word is Romanian *hrapă 'rocky versant' from
> Ukrainian/Ruthenian 'hrapa' -> that seems to have the same history as
> *hruba.
>
> In my opinion the initial word was *skarpa < *karpa 'rock' (see
> Alb. karpë, Carpatian Mountains and the Dacian Tribe Carpi but also
> the word s^karpë 'rock' present in Romanian and Aromanian)
>
> Applying the Proto-Albanian - Dacian transformations: *sk- > *ks-
>> *h- we obtain : *harpa. Again I think that this word was borrowed
> by the Slavs as *harpa from Dacians and after the Slavic Methatesis
> it became *hrapa
>
> So based on the 2 examples above my understanding is that the *sk-
>> *ks- > *h- happens in a part of the areal of Daco-Moesian Dialects
> (and also in Proto-Albanian or only in a part of its Dialects) and
> whenever we find such impacts in the Slavic Languages that words
> should be later loans in Slavic from some local Dacian Dialects (more
> or less Romanized).
>
> So my opinion is that : there is no methathesis sk > ks > h in
> Slavic but only old loans reflecting this, from Dacian Tribes placed
> at North of Today Romania.

And you came to this conclusion by looking at two Romanian (sic!) words?

The change *sk- > *ks- > *kS- > *kx- > x- definitely *did* happen in
Slavic, although the conditions of it are not really clear (i.e. it's not
really clear why PIE *sk- sometimes remains *sk- and why does it sometimes
become x-). In order to see the examples, one needs only to open any
Slavic etymologic dictionary and check the words beginning with x-.

Mate