Re: Metochia

"John Atkinson" <johnacko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:So2xj.19661$421.6891@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
On Feb 26, 9:22 am, "Dušan Vukotić" <dusan.vuko...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

If you take all the above words into serious consideration you will
be
able to understand why (and how) the Serbian auxiliary verb "imati"
is
closely related (cognate) to English "have" and Latin "habeo".

Except for the slight problem that English "have" and Latin "habeo"
are not cognate. The Latin cognate of "have" is "capio."

And the Latin cognate of "imati" is "emo"

[...]

John.

You beat me to it. I was just going to say the Slavic "have", "imati"
is not at all related to PIE verbs that resulted in Latin "habeo", or "capio".

The relationship to "emo" is quite complex. There seem to be several
other Slavic cognates of the verb "emo", not related to each other since
early times of Old Slavic.

According to Vasmer, "imati/míti/mám/mieć/mom/met/etc." (have) is
related to Old Slavic *jьmo¤: *jęti, which in turn is cognate of "emo".

Another branch, "емлю/jímati/jе̏мље̑м/jѐмати̃" (to take/capture/etc.)
more closely resembles the original OSl. form as well as the meaning
of OSl. *jьmo¤: *jęti or Lat. "emo" (to take).

BTW, Lit. cognates: "imù/ėmiau".

pjk

.