# хлебать and хлеб... false friends?



## CitizenEmpty

The Russian words хлебать (meaning gulping down) and хлеб (meaning bread) look similar. But however, I think they are false friends. But is there any possibility that they have the same origin?


----------



## yezik

CitizenEmpty said:


> The Russian words хлебать (meaning gulping down) and хлеб (meaning bread) look similar. But however, I think they are false friends. But is there any possibility that they have the same origin?



Not just the friends - they are brothers. People mixed a flour or any breadstuffs with water or milk, and just drunk it, with a spoon or without.
I 'd say - liqude - bread. No need to bake the bread every time, ??? Do you eat flakes time by time? Same stuff.


----------



## Ben Jamin

yezik said:


> Not just the friends - they are brothers. People mixed a flour or any breadstuffs with water or milk, and just drunk it, with a spoon or without.
> I 'd say - liqude - bread. No need to bake the bread every time, ??? Do you eat flakes time by time? Same stuff.


It doesn't sound plausible. By the way, хлеб is of Germanic origin, and хлебать is likely to come from a common Slavic onomatopeic word (compare Polish chlup-ac' and сhłерtаć.)


----------



## rusita preciosa

Ben Jamin said:


> хлебать is likely to come from a common Slavic onomatopeic word (compare Polish chlup-ac' and сhłерtаć.)


Vasmer (one of the most recognized etymology resources for Russian) supports this version, rather than хлебать and хлеб being related.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all,



> хлеб is of Germanic origin, and хлебать is likely to come from a common Slavic onomatopeic word (compare Polish chlup-ac' and сhłерtаć...)


 (Ben Jamin, #3)

Maybe (cf. Etym. on line, s.v. "loaf": "late 13c., from Old English _hlaf_ "portion of bread baked in a mass of definite form," from Proto-Germanic *_khlaibuz_ (cognates: Old Norse _hleifr_, Swedish _lev_, Old Frisian _hlef_, Old High German _hleib_, German _Laib_, Gothic _hlaifs_ "bread, loaf")...Old Church Slavonic _chlebu_, Lithuanian _klepas_ probably are Germanic loan words...").

But how in such an instance does one distinguish between "loan-words" and "cognates" with common PIE origins?

Σ


----------



## fdb

Scholiast said:


> But how in such an instance does one distinguish between "loan-words" and "cognates" with common PIE origins?



By seeing whether or not they can be explained by the established IE sound laws.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Scholiast said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> (Ben Jamin, #3)
> 
> Maybe (cf. Etym. on line, s.v. "loaf": "late 13c., from Old English _hlaf_ "portion of bread baked in a mass of definite form," from Proto-Germanic *_khlaibuz_ (cognates: Old Norse _hleifr_, Swedish _lev_, Old Frisian _hlef_, Old High German _hleib_, German _Laib_, Gothic _hlaifs_ "bread, loaf")...Old Church Slavonic _chlebu_, Lithuanian _klepas_ probably are Germanic loan words...").
> 
> But how in such an instance does one distinguish between "loan-words" and "cognates" with common PIE origins?
> 
> Σ


Do you know any alternative etymology of Slavic  _chlebu? _


----------



## yezik

Ben Jamin said:


> Do you know any alternative etymology of Slavic  _chlebu? _



Of course.  хлябь -  abyss, хлюпать -  squish,  хлипкий -  flimsy....
Same sens - same root.  Origin - Slavic. 
Тесто БРОДИТ (  not  "walking around" but -  turning sour) some time, that's why  - брага и ... bread - brodis walking around but turning sour).


----------



## ahvalj

These words are unrelated and, moreover, became false friends rather recently, in the second half of the 18th century. Before that, the word "bread" had a long _e_, _хлѣбъ_, whereas the word "to gulp down" had a short one, _хлебати_. Going deeper, _ē_ in _хлѣбъ/xlěbъ_ is of diphthongal origin as evidenced by Germanic and Finnic words, so, regardless of whether the Slavic form is inherited or borrowed, its _ě_ is a member of the alternation _i/eı̯/oı̯ _(<*_kloı̯bʰos_ if from Germanic or *_ksloı̯bʰos_<_*skloı̯bʰos_ if inherited); _хлебати_, in contrast, seems to have the plain _e, _testified by the Russian _прихлёбывать_ (the shift _е_>_ё_ is regular, whereas _ѣ_ develops into _ё_ only in several words, like _звёзды_) and by those Slavic languages that show separate reflexes of *_e_ and *_ē_.

Update. One may argue that the pair _хлебати_ — _хлѣбъ _belongs to the same model as_ творити — тварь_, and that in both cases we find the pattern "standard grade of the vowel in the verb vs. the lengthened one in the deverbal noun", but in reality _тварь_ is an _i_-stemmed noun (<*_tu̯ōris_), quite probably remodeled from the root noun (*_tu̯ōr, _cp. Greek _θήρ_ vs. _звѣрь_ and Lithuanian _žvėr__is_; Greek _δᾱήρ, _Sanskrit_ devā́ _vs._ дѣверь_ and Lithuanian _dieveris_), where the long vowel may be either of laryngeal origin (the root is *_tu̯erhₓ_-, cp. Lithuanian _tvérti_ "to grab" with the acute developed from the postsonorant laryngeal) or a result of generalization of the lengthened grade of the IE Nom. Sg., whereas thematic (as in _xlěbъ_) nouns from such verbs have in Slavic the standard grade of the root: 
_хлебать — водо-хлёб, стебать — стёб, недое…ать — недоё…, соскрести — соскрёб, зевать — зёв, клевать — клёв, чесать — чёс, тесать — камено-тёс, переплетать — переплёт _etc.


----------



## Hulalessar

fdb said:


> By seeing whether or not they can be explained by the established IE sound laws.


But do the IE sound laws not depend upon deciding what is a cognate and what is a loan?


----------



## ahvalj

Hulalessar said:


> But do the IE sound laws not depend upon deciding what is a cognate and what is a loan?


The sound laws are something we learn from regular and reproducible sets of correspondences. In this sense, the IE *_k_ itself cannot result in the Slavic _x_, whereas this is absolutely regular for Germanic, hence the idea that the Slavic word is borrowed from the latter source. On the other hand, we have examples when Slavic _x_ corresponds to _sk_ in other languages, e. g., for *_skl_-: _xlębь_ vs. Lithuanian _sklembti_ and _xlǫdъ_ vs. Lithuanian and Latvian _sklanda_ (Derksen R · 2008 · Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon: 202 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJb0J4a1VKMVlPRXM&authuser=0), so, taking into consideration that in IE *_s_- could be freely added to any initial stop (the so called _s mobile_), we suddenly get a viable Slavic etymology (see post #9). The German scholars (Vasmer etc.) routinely preferred the Germanic etymologies of all such words, but actually it is impossible to decide whether this word is borrowed or not.

There are, however, numerous cases when the sound can't be explained by inner developments, e. g. English _path_ and related Germanic forms have the mysterious initial _p_ and the root _a_ (the inherited word would have looked **_footh_ if from *_ponthₐ_-, cp. for the vowel _tooth_<*_hₒdont-_ or **_fouth_ if from *_p__n̥__thₐ_-, cp. _mouth_ from *_mn̥t_-), so the only plausible explanation is that this is a borrowing from Iranic (Iranian for fdb) — Scythian or Sarmatian — where this reflexation (_paθ_-<_pn̥thₐ-_) is regular.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> English _path_ and related Germanic forms have the mysterious initial _p_ and the root _a_ (the inherited word would have looked **_footh_ if from *_ponthₐ_-, cp. for the vowel _tooth_<*_hₒdont-_ or **_fouth_ if from *_p__n̥__thₐ_-, cp. _mouth_ from *_mn̥t_-), so the only plausible explanation is that this is a borrowing from Iranic _.._.



The origin of “path”, “Pfad” etc, is indeed problematic. http://www.dwds.de/?qu=pfad writes: 

“Dagegen bleibt die Annahme einer Entlehnung des Substantivs aus dem Iran. ins Germ. auf Grund der nur westgerm. Bezeugung bedenklich. Vielleicht stammt das Wort aus einer vorie. Substratsprache; vgl. de Vries Nl. 500”, 

a (in my view) serious objection.


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> The origin of “path”, “Pfad” etc, is indeed problematic. http://www.dwds.de/?qu=pfad writes:
> 
> “Dagegen bleibt die Annahme einer Entlehnung des Substantivs aus dem Iran. ins Germ. auf Grund der nur westgerm. Bezeugung bedenklich. Vielleicht stammt das Wort aus einer vorie. Substratsprache; vgl. de Vries Nl. 500”,
> 
> a (in my view) serious objection.


Actually, if we recall that Goths and other East Germanics traced their ancestry from Scandinavia, the borrowing from Iranic to the continental (i. e. future West) Germanic is geographically most plausible, at least if it had occurred in centuries B.C. and thus before the East Germanic conquest of Vistula lands.  

We should also remember that the IE languages of Central Europe have not survived and have left no written records, so this borrowing could have been indirect, through this Central European (Pannonian, Vistula Venetic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti] etc.) mediation.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> — Scythian or Sarmatian — where this reflexation (_paθ_-<_pn̥thₐ-_) is regular.



For Scythian/Sarmatian/Alanic I would actually expect a form with f-, like Ossetic фæндaг.


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> For Scythian/Sarmatian/Alanic I would actually expect a form with f-, like Ossetic фæндaг.


This again appears to be a matter of time. Abayev (_1979 · Основы иранского языкознания. Древнеиранские языки: _332–333 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJbzlnd3k4MktIWmM&authuser=0) cites examples of the same roots attested in Greek with _π_ (I guess, in earlier sources) and _φ_ (I guess in later ones), e. g. _pid_- "father" in _Πίδοϛ_ vs. _fid_- in _Φίδαϛ_, _purt_- "son" in _Πουρθαῖοϛ_ and _Πουρθάκηϛ_ vs. _furt_- in _Φούρτας_ etc. As to the word in question, we have it directly attested with _p_ in _Παντικάπηϛ_ and _Παντικάπαιον_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panticapaeum) "fish-path" (also Abayev, op. cit.: 297–298), though with another root grade.


----------



## fdb

Bielmeier in Compendium linguarum iranicarum p. 240, writes that the Sarmatian names with p- “ausschliesslich aus Olbia (1.-3. Jh.) und Entsprechungen mit f- ausschliesslich aus dem östlichen Raum (ab. 2./3. Jh.) belegt sind”. I wonder whether it is at all likely that the proto-West-Germanic tribes had any contact with the Sarmatians on the North shore of the Black Sea.


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> Bielmeier in Compendium linguarum iranicarum p. 240, writes that the Sarmatian names with p- “ausschliesslich aus Olbia (1.-3. Jh.) und Entsprechungen mit f- ausschliesslich aus dem östlichen Raum (ab. 2./3. Jh.) belegt sind”. I wonder whether it is at all likely that the proto-West-Germanic tribes had any contact with the Sarmatians on the North shore of the Black Sea.


I unfortunately can't comment this evidence, but theoretically speaking, Greeks were in contact with the Scythian world during the most part of the 1st millennium B.C., so at least some percent of the Scythian names mentioned by classical authors must be older than the 1–3 and 2/3 centuries, both B.C. and A.C. Panticapaeum mentioned above was founded at the turn of the 7/6th centuries. In any case, we seem to observe the shift _p_>_f_, which should have occurred at some point in Scythian anyway, quite probably slightly heterochronously in various dialects. 

On the other hand, we don't know when _p_>_f_ occurred in Germanic: there are ideas that even in the last centuries B.C., so the borrowing must have occurred before such a shift in Scythian but after one in Germanic. 

From what I know about the ancient history, I don't think there was a massive of West Germanic speech to the north of the Black sea anytime before the end of the 18th century, when Catherine II invited German settlers, and I don't know if any Iranic tribes entered Central Europe, so I can only speculate that such a borrowing may have occurred through merchants or craftspeople. Or, indeed, through one of the now extinct Central European languages. By the way, this language may have lacked _f,_ while possessing _th_, though we're entering the realm of fantasies here.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> and I don't know if any Iranic tribes entered Central Europe



There are the Jas in Hungary, but not until much later (probably 13th c.).


----------



## yezik

ahvalj said:


> Actually,* if we recall that Goths and other *East Germanics traced their ancestry from Scandinavia, the borrowing from Iranic to the continental (i. e. future West) Germanic is geographically most plausible, at least if it had occurred in centuries B.C. and thus before the East Germanic conquest of Vistula lands.
> 
> *We should also remember that the IE languages of Central Europe have not survived and have left no written records, *so this borrowing could have been indirect, through this Central European (Pannonian, Vistula Venetic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti] etc.) mediation.



if we recall that Goths and other East Germanics ....
We should also remember that the IE languages of Central Europe have not survived and have left no written records...  *????*
*A  Silver fibula found in  Bayrisch Schwaben, (Германия)* 
 well written by "*gotic " "futarc*" : 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, ---  *ZI DRAHO DIt LEUBO *- «за драга *дите* любо»* !!!  My Gots !
*
Show it to any Slavic speaking person...


----------

