> On 2007-09-18 01:22, stlatos wrote:
> > To make sure I wasn't misremembering I went to www.indo-european.nl
> > to find:
> > Etymology: From PIE lok´si- `salmon, salmon-trout' [: OHG lahs (m.),
> > Old English leax (m.), Old Norse lax (m.), all `salmon' (<
> > Proto-Germanic *lahsa-), Old Prussian lasasso (f.) `salmon' (<
> > *lok´sok´yeha-), Lithuanian la~is (m.), Latvian lasis (m.) `salmon'
> > (< *lok´si-), Lithuanian laia` (f.) `id.' (< *lok´sik´yeha-),
> > Russian loso´s' `salmon,' Ossetic läsäg `brown trout' (< *lok´sok´o-)
> > (P:653; MA:497)] (cf. Schrader/Nehring, 1929:2). In Tocharian we see
> > the zero-grade *l,k´si- of a paradigm whose strong grade was *lok´si-
> > (cf. Krause, 1961). We need not assume that this basic word is a
> > borrowing from an unattested TchA *laks from PIE *lok´so- as does VW
> > (254-5). For a fuller treatment of the meaning and form of this etymon
> > in Indo-European, see Diebold (1976).
> > Some of this is obviously wrong, but what do you think about the
> > likelihood of borrowing?
> The bottom line is that the word was most likely borrowed as
> *luksu- from an IE (but non-Iranian) source, which only makes sense if
> the donor language had something like *lok(^)so- and inherited *o
> that time been unrounded in the ancestor of Tocharian.When I said "Some of this is obviously wrong" I meant that Ossetic