Re: [tied] *kap-

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] *kap-


> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>
>> I've never seen this kind of metathesis in Slavic reconstructions, so I
>> assume it's ad hoc here, just to account for the long vowel. The alleged
>> (dialectal) Slavic *xapati 'snap, catch (violently)' is isolated and can
>> well be a loan from Low German (cf. Dutch happen 'snap').
>
> On second thoughts, I retract this part. *xapati is attested in Old
> Russian and Old Czech,

Not only, see Vasmer. It is present in all Slavic languages including OCS.

> and so has to be older than that. Still, verbs
> with -ati infinitives and -je- presents include numerous expressive and
> originally iconic words. To stick to Polish examples, we have <chrapac'>
> 'snore', <s'wistac'> 'whistle', <chlupac'> 'splash about', etc., plus
> the whole group of expressive iteratives in *-ot-ati/*-ot-joN (Pol.
> <furkotac'> 'flutter', <chichotac'> 'giggle', <bel/kotac'> 'mumble').
> Some of such verbs may be reconstructible back to Proto-Slavic and even
> PIE, but others are evidently of recent coinage, since the pattern was
> highly productive in Proto-Slavic and in the individual Slavic dialects.
> As the core meaning of *xapati is 'snatch, snap'

"catch with teeth", see Vasmer. Some Slavic languages preserved the meaning
'catch,'. Moreover, Russ. xap 'brick, trump'.

>, the verb may be an
> instance of PSl. onomatopoeia (cf. the Pol. interjection <chap(s)!>
> symbolising a quick bite).

Latin capere may be as well. The answer is when the onomatopoeia became
"normal" word.

> LGer. happen, hapsen may be the same kind of
> onomatopoeia, even if coined independently.
>
> I don't retract my suggestion that *xopiti is a loan.
>
> Piotr

Of course it may be an old loan or an onomatopoeia. Of course Latin habe:-
and Germanic habe:- may be unrelated. Of course Latin capere and Germanic
kap-, ko:p- (two IE plain voiced stops in one root!) may be unrelated as
well. This all can be just a result of coincidence. And I have right not to
believe in the coincidence here. Have I? Which is more, I have a firm basis
for such a belief.

See the list of more such "coincidences" on my page
http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/lingwen/iesem2.html (near the bottom of
the page). And notice that verbs meaning "have" change irregularily because
of frequency and it is a LAW, not a coincidence. E.g. Polish miec' instead
of imiec', Italian ho < habeo, Eng. has, had with no -v- etc.

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com