Re: [tied] *kap-

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> Grzegorz Jagodzinski wrote:
>
>> Borrowings do not form, as a rule, rich word families, especially
>> with miscellaneous meanings. Slavic xopiti / xapati does, e.g. Old
>> Polish chopic' (catch, adhere, cling), chapac', ochapiac',
>> pochopic', pochopiac', wschopic', ochopien', ochopny, pochop,
>> pochopny (survived till today, 'hasty, inconsiderate, eager,
>> ready'). So, this word does not look like a loanword.
>
> Come on, this "rich" word family consists of two members, whose
> relationship to each other is dubious

Which are they?

> plus a small group of
> productive derivatives for each. Your "rule" concerning borrowings is
> easy to falsify with counterexamples. Take any well-known early loan
> from Germanic, e.g. *kuningaz --> *kUneN3I and count the derivatives
> in Polish: <ksia,dz> 'priest', <ksia,z.e> 'duke, prince', <ksie,z.yc>
> 'moon' (I hope the meanings are miscellaneous enough) plus a good many
> derived adjectives and secondary nouns. Once a loan becomes
> sufficiently naturalised, its behaviour is indistinguishable from
> that of inherited words.
>
> Piotr

Of course you are right, that's why I wrote "as a rule".

Btw. do you know more examples similar to *xopiti - *xapati? I mean lack of
*j in the frequentative form, cf. c^istiti 'clean' - *-c^istjati (with
prefixes), xoditi 'go, walk' - *xadjati (Polish <chadzac'> 'walk
frequently'), lis^iti (<*lixiti) 'deprive' - lis^ati (<*lixjati) etc. So,
**xapjati would be expected instead of *xapati.

Grzegorz J.



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