On 2007-09-04 08:08, Rick McCallister wrote:
> But are *skei- & *sker- related? --the forms are too
> similar to pass up
> and the s- is mobile, right? See cut, maybe Latin
> caesare?
Regional variants of Middle English cuttan (kitten, ketten) show that if
the verb existed in OE it was most likely something like *cyttan
(unattested) as if from OPGmc. *kut-ja-. Whatever it is, it doesn't
appear to be _genetically_ related to *skeit-a- < *sk^eid-, let alone
*(s)ker- (though they may be something vaguely sound-symbolic about the
combination K..T).
Cognates of *sk^eid- without the initial *s are all doubtful. The best
ones show a reflex of the sibilant (Skt. cHinátti/cHindánti, RV 1pl.
aor.inj. cHedma; cHinná- 'cut off', cHidrá- 'torn, pierced', áccHidra-
'unbroken', etc.; Lat. scindo:/scicidi:/scissum) and justify the
reconstruction of a PIE root aorist (*sk^éid-/*sk^id-') paired with a
nasal-infixed present (*sk^inéd-/*sk^ind-'). The aspiration in the Gk.
skHid- word-family is something of a mystery (unless one accepts
*sk(^)Heid- with a voiceless aspirated stop as a valid PIE reconstruction).
Piotr