On 2025-05-17, Ross Clark <
[email protected]> wrote:
cadāver, -eris "Leichnam": wohl P.P.A. "der Gefallene" zu cadābundus,
cado (s.d.) (Vaniček 67, vgl. auch Schulze Qu.ep. 250 a 1).
papāver, -eris 'Mohn': wohl ptc.pf.act. *papā-ṷes "aufgeblasen, aufgedunsen" (Bildung wie cadāver) zu Wz. *pap- "aufblasen" in pampinus, papula (Vaniček 154).
The "participle perfect active" is confusing, because Latin verbs
don't have such a category. I guess it refers to an older formation
that would only exist in relic forms in Latin. I see that a
participle in *-wos- ~ *-us- is reconstructed for the PIE stative.
I don't understand why such a formation wouldn't require a perfect
stem.
Here's what de Vaan's _Etymological Dictionary of Latin_ (2008)
says. I missed that initially because cadaver doesn't have its
own entry and is treated under cadō:
The form of cadaver is difficult to explain. WH assume a ppa.
*kadā-wes- ‘having fallen’, which is fine semantically; but where
would ā come from, and why would the neuter form have been
lexicalized?
No entry for papāver.
PS:
The entry for cadō also mentions IE cognates Gr. κεκαδών ‘robbing’, ύπὸ ... κεκάδοντο ‘they receded’ [I may have butchered the diacritics]
and further says:
The appurtenance of Gr. pf. κεκαδ- is disputed: ‘to recede’ may
have developed from ‘to fall back’, but this would probably imply
that the active forms are secondary.
Whatever. But "appurtenance"? That's not the right word, is it?
I think we're looking for a derivative of "appertain", but English
dictionaries seem rather mum there. Simply "pertinence"?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber
[email protected]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)