¹ I am indebted to Aleksander Schenker and Philip Scherer for looking up books for me in New York libraries; to the former also for reading the manuscript and making some corrections.

For abbreviations cf. Lg. 24.346, fn. 1, and add:

Bogadek: F. A. Bogadek, New English-Croatian and Croatian-English Dictionary, 2d ed.; New York, 1944.

Brückner (Słown. etym.): Aleks. Brückner, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego; Kraków, 1927.

Dalᕹ: Vlad. Dalᕹ,Tolkovyj slovarᕹ živogo velikorusskago jazyka, 4th ed.; St. Petersburg, 1912–14.

Holub (Slovn. česk.) : J. Holub, Stručný slovník etymologický jazyka československého; Praha,1937.

Kabesch: Friedr. Kabesch, Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch der tschechischen und deutschen Sprache; Berlin-Schöneberg, 1929.

Miklosich: Franz Miklosich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen; Wien, 1886.

Miklosich, Lex. Pal.: Franz Miklosich, Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum; Vienna, 1862–5.

Plet(eršnik) : M. Pleteršnik, Slovensko-nemški slovar; Ljubljana, 1894–5.

Preobr(aženskij) : A. Preobraženskij, Etimologičeskij slovarᕹ russkago jazyka; Moskva, 1910–16 (A-suleja).

Słownik: Słownik języka polskiego, by Karłowicz, Kryński, and Niedźwiedzki; Warszawa, 1900–27.

Ušakov: D. N. Ušakov, Tolkovyj slovarᕹ russkogo jazyka; Moskva, 1935–40.

Vuk: Vuk Stef. Karadžić, Lexicon Serbico-Germanico-Latinum, 3d ed.; Belgrad, 1898.

Weigand-Dorič: G. Weigand and A. Dorič, Bulgarisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, 6th ed.; Leipzig, 1943.

Zipper-Urich: Alb. Zipper and Emil Urich, Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch der polnischen und deutschen Sprache; Berlin-Schöneberg, 1920.

Želekh(ovskyj): Evgenyj Želekhovskyj, Malorusko-nïmeckyj slovar; L'viv, 1886.

^1a These would seem to be the English meanings defined by the juxtaposition of nalečb with napravitᕹ staranija (and they would fit with the meanings of Ukrainian, see below); but in the two examples which Sreznevskij gives for these meanings, pri-leg- seems to mean something else. The passages are prileže jemᕹ dijavolᕹ (Žit. Nifont., 13th c.) and douksᕹ črᕹnorizᕹcᕹ prileže mᕹně (Io. Ekz. Bog., copy of around 1200), and here prileg- seems to mean ‘to press hard’: ‘the devil pressed him hard’ and ‘the leader of the monks pressed me hard’.

² For Old Russian, this meaning seems to be given by Sreznevskij, but (as shown in fn. la) is not borne out by his passages.

^2a A close cognate of Slov. , with a different suffix, but virtually the same meaning, is Cz. přiležitý ‘convenient, suitable’.

³ As is correctly stated by V. Kiparsky, Die gemeinslavischen Lehnwörter aus dem Germanischen 122 (Annales Acad. Scient. Fennicae B/xxxii, 1934), Slov. prïd, prída m. ‘Nutzen’ (in Krelj's Postila, 1567 and 1578, prud), with the derivative príditi (and dial. prúditi) ‘nützen’ (Plet.), Croat, pruditi ‘be of use’ (Bogadek), SCr. (Littoral) prúditi ‘nützen’ (Vuk), is identical with Vulg. Lat. prōde ‘Nutzen’, It. prode etc. Miklosich's connection with dě- ‘to put’, as pri-d- (43b, bott.), and Berneker's with da- ‘to give’ (178) are erroneous (although the latter's is correct for SCr. prîd m. ‘Daraufgabe bei einem Tausch, quod superadditur’ [Vuk] and Bg. prid ‘Daraufgabe, Belohnung, Mitgift’ [beside prída and prídan f.]). The relation of the vowels of Rom. prōde and Croat.-Slov. prud, Slov. prìd is difficult. Is prud the later loan, directly = Istrian *prude, with < u (cf. Meyer-Lübke, Ital. Gramm. 23, §29), and prid the older loan, made (if Istrian u is as old as that) before the Slavic change of ū < y (> i)?

⁴ Most of the government of Smolensk, in any case, is White Russian, where pilbnyj is general.

⁵ Ukrainian, according to Želekhovskyj, does have pryléžnyj, but only in the meaning ‘anliegend, adjacent’.

⁶ The Slavic translator has put ‘ardent’ instead of ‘select’.

⁷ Khilandarskie listki, otryvok ... xigo veka (Pamjatniki staroslav. jaz. i/1; St. Petersburg, 1900).

⁸ We have just seen in §3 that the word is not really attested in Old Church Slavic.

⁹ I do not know an attestation of *pilᕹnᕹ in the Balkans.

^9a Ukrainian has both, but with different meanings: pýl'nyj ‘diligent, urgent’ and pryléžnyj ‘adjacent’.

¹⁰ Miklosich, Lex. Pal. 316.

¹¹ Böhtlingk-Roth 2.103; Berneker 669, Trautmann 146 sub kurna-, Walde-Pokorny 2.573 and 577.

¹² Meillet, Ét. 434; Meillet-Vaillant 352.

¹³ Kluge, Urgerm.³ 175.

¹⁴ Braune⁴ §344. In Gothic there is no *ligans, because durative intransitives here have no past participles (Streitberg, Elementarb.^5–6 §208 A.).

¹⁵ Meillet, Ét. 433–6; Vondrák, Vergi. Gramm.² 528.

¹⁶ Problematic are the base-forms of adjectives in °s(k)nᕹ like OCS těsnᕹ ‘narrow’, which in Church Slavic (especially Serbian Church Slavic) and Old Czech still has forms with k, respectively těsknᕹ (těskᕹnᕹ; also těskᕹnᕹ? Miklosich, Lex. Pal.) and těskný; a derivative of (CS) těskᕹ ‘a press’, tiskati ‘to press’. Miklosich l.c. posited těskᕹnᕹ, but Meillet, Ét. 435 (1905), Leskien, Handb.⁵ 341 (1910), and Vondrák, Aksl.² 186 (1912) start from *těsk-no-; van Wijk, Aksl. 101 (1931), on the other hand, does not exclude an original jer. But we have těsknᕹ, not *těš(t)nᕹ; should the suffix have been not -ᕹnᕹ, but *-ᕹnᕹ (= *uno-)? Or was the adjective formed with -ᕹno- only after the palatalization? Forms like Ass. těsenᕹ, těsᕹnaě prove nothing; they can only be secondary, for k cannot have been lost earlier than the jer; těsenᕹ is probably due to anaptyxis, and těsᕹnaě to anaptyxis or inverse writing. The adjectives in °snᕹ and °znᕹ, like desnᕹ ‘right’ (contrasting with Lith. ‘right hand’ and Skt. dákṣiṇa-) and želěznᕹ ‘of iron’ (contrasting with Lith. geležìnis), almost certainly had original *-ᕹno-.

¹⁷ The labiovelar seems to be required only by Gk. ‘light, swift’.

¹⁸ The vocalism of Gk. ‘small’ is ambiguous, because, in view of Lith. leñgvas ‘light’ and OHG lungar ‘quick’, a may be ṇ.

¹⁹ Cf. Hermann Güntert, Indogermanische Ablautprobleme (1916) 59 (for saidim), 61 (for laigiu and lᕹgᕹkᕹ), and 88 (for ).

²⁰ Meillet, Ét. 130–1; Vondrák, Vergi. Gramm.² 466.

²¹ More exactly, etc. represents a transformation *ognjὂs.

²² The new dictionary by Kuzela-Rudnyćkyj (Leipzig, 1943) no longer has the word.

²³ Meillet, Ét. 354; Vondrák, Vergi. Gramm.² 627–30.

²⁴ Miklosich 318b; Meillet, Ét. 354; Trautmann 280 (top).

²⁵ The Old Church Slavic passage is: rěky strugy svoję, which translates Gk. oì ποταμοì . Hebrew has yiś'ū dåḵyåm, with 'crashing, dashing' (?), an unclear hapax legomenon, being a derivative of dåḵå' 'to crush'; this is the basis of the Gk. . The Latin Vulgate (second redaction of St. Jerome, around 390) has simplified the obscurity; it gives elevaverunt flumina fluctus suos, and this version is followed by most of the modern redactions; e.g. English (King James) the floods lift up their waves. But Russian (Brit. Bible Soc; Berlin, 1922) has vozvysili reki šum svoj, where šum ‘noise’ apparently is meant to render Gk. .

²⁶ Cf. the Czech meanings ‘Graben, Rinne’. The semantic difference between struga and the *sreu-derivatives is especially clear in Slovenian: while strúja, besides ‘Flussarm, Kanal’, also means ‘Strom, Strömung’, and strúmen, besides ‘Flussarm’, also ‘Wasserstrom, Wasserströmung’, strúga is only ‘Rinnsal, Wasserbett, Strombett; Wasserarm, Mühlbach, Kanal, Wiesen-Abzugsgraben’ (but already ‘Windströmung‘) (Plet.).

²⁷ Meillet, Ét. 258; WP 2.716.

²⁸ In Pol. and Ukr., ‘to prefer’ is woleć and volḯty respectively.

²⁹ In Russian, nalegátᕹ ('to lie upon, press upon') does not have this figurative meaning. 'To urge somebody, in jemanden dringen' is here uprášyvatᕹ, and ‘to urge something, auf etwas dringen, insist upon’ is nastojátᕹ na, with a figure very similar to that of *nalěgati; cf. Lat. insistere, Germ, auf etwas bestehen. Ukrainian has naljaháty na kohó for ‘to urge somebody’, but nastójaty na ščo for ‘to insist upon something’.

³⁰ Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

³¹ That a verb with the base meaning ‘to look (out) for’ develops the full meaning 'to wait' (as e.g. in the phrase wait a little) is a common phenomenon, cf. Lat. exspectāre and Ital. aspettare, Ital. attendere and French attendre (originally 'be attentive to'), Germ. warten (originally 'to look out', cf. Aussichtswarte 'a lookout'), and Engl, wait itself, a loan from OFrench waitier, in turn borrowed from OFranc. wahtēn, from wahta 'vigilia'.

³² Russ. ‘skoryj, bystryj’. — Lith. nõglas (Nesselmann nuoglas) ‘sudden’ (of death) is a loan from Polish or White Russian (cf. Buga apud Preobr. l.c.); the variant nuo° is probably due to association with the Lith. preposition nuõ ‘from’.

³³ Preobr. 589.

³⁴ Preobr. 589.

³⁵ ‘Sudden’ is in (Serbo-)Croatian (Bogadek) iznenadan, nagao (!), žestok, adv. iznenada, najednom, žestoko; in Russian vnezápnyj, nečájannyj, adv. vdrug, neožídanno, vnezápno; and in Bulgarian vnezápen, adv. -pno. ‘Quick’ is in Russian býstryj, skóryj, in Bulgarian bᕹrz, skor (adv. -o).

³⁶ ‘Suddenly’ is here , probably a relative of Lat. op-īnor.

³⁷ The exact language and time of the texts are noted as far as Miklosich's references and list, supplemented by Sreznevskij 's additions, allow.

³⁸ This first group of Weigand-Dorič's meanings (which, incidentally, does not concern us here) is strange: we would expect '*sich anlegen' etc.; but the transitives seem to be borne out by Duvernois's ‘prižmu’ (see below). Probably we are dealing with confusion of the base verb with the causative nalágam, from which, in the ja-dialect, naljágam differs only by the palatalized l.

³⁹ A. Duvernois, Slovarᕹ, bolgarskogo jazyka; Moscow, 1886–9.

⁴⁰ The Bulgarian-English Dictionary of K. Stefanow (Sofia, 1914) lacks this meaning; he gives only: (active) ‘to lie or press upon, bear upon, hold under’; (neuter) ‘to lie down’; nalégnat ‘pressed tight, penned, held under’.

⁴¹ A neat example of the base meaning of na-leg- is CS na mᕹčᕹ nalegh ubode se 'falling upon his sword (in gladium incumbens) he pierced himself (Alex.-Mihan., Serb., 16th c.).

⁴² In Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, nalèći (se) means ‘to lean upon’ and ‘to gather’, and nalijègati is ‘to belong to’ (Vuk, Bogadek).

⁴³ Cf. Leskien, Serbo-kroat. 470.

⁴⁴ Zlatarić's naglò (Vaillant l.c.) only denotes the shortness of the final, not the accent.

⁴⁵ Aug. Fick, Vergi. Wb.³ vii.9 (1874);⁴13, 368 (1890); Preobr. 589 (1910); WP 1.59 (1930); Feist³ 42 (1939) sub anaks.

⁴⁶ Textually, the correspondences of Goth, anaks (in Mark 9.8, Luke 2.13, and Luke 9.39) are: in OCS , in Russian vnezápno, in Polish wnet and natychmiast (twice), in Czech fined (twice) and ihned, in Slov. , hîpoma (hîp ‘Augenblick’; = Germ. Hieb?), and ( ‘hope‘), in Serbo-Croat, u jedanput, in Bulg. vnezápno (twice), and izvednáž.