interj

ese `behold!' [interj];

jese `behold!' [interj]

vosé (dial.), vóse (dial.), vos' (dial.) `look!' [interj]

ese, ose `look!' [interj]

osé `look!' [interj];

esé (dial.) `here!' [interj]

esé `there!' [interj]

IE meaning: look, behold

Comments: This interjection is based on the PIE particle *(h₁)e, cf. Gk. ἐκει̃νος.

bída `poverty, misery' [f ā];

běda `woe!' [interj]

bieda `poverty, misery' [f ā];

biada `woe!' [interj]

biada `distress, necessity' [f ā] \{1\}

IE meaning: force

Certainty: +

Comments: According to Būga (RR I: 345-346), Lith. bėdà 4 `misfortune, trouble, guilt' is probably not a borrowing from Slavic because it has ė instead of the expected ie (cf. biẽdnas `poor'). Indeed, there seems to be no obvious reason why bėdà and Latv. bę̀da `sorrow, grief, distress' should not be old. These words could be connected with bãdas `hunger' and Skt. bā́dhate `oppress' (Būga l.c., Derksen 1996: 258). However, a dilemma arises if we consider that Slavic běditi `force, persuade' cannot be separated from Go. baidjan `force'. We must either declare the Baltic forms borrowings or assume that in Slavic *běd- < *bhoidh- and *běd- < *bʰēdʰ- were contaminated (cf. Anikin 1998: 39). In the latter case OCS běda `distress' and `necessity' would continue different roots. This is a possibility which cannot be excluded. The hypothesis that Lith. baidýti `to scare' < *bʰiH- `to fear' is cognate with *bē̌dà and *běditi (cf. Trubačëv II: 55-56) must be rejected, if only on formal grounds.

Alb. be `oath' [f] \{2\}

\{1\} The vocalism of Modern Polish bieda `id.' is of Mazowian origin, cf. biada `woe!'. \{2\} According to Būga (RR I: 345-346), Lith. bėdà 4 `misfortune, trouble, guilt' is probably not a borrowing from Slavic because it has ė instead of the expected ie (cf. biẽdnas `poor'). Indeed, there seems to be no obvious reason why bėdà and Latv. bę̀da `sorrow, grief, distress' should not be old. These words could be connected with bãdas `hunger' and Skt. bā́dhate `oppress' (Būga l.c., Derksen 1996: 258). However, a dilemma arises if we consider that Slavic běditi `force, persuade' cannot be separated from Go. baidjan `force'. We must either declare the Baltic forms borrowings or assume that in Slavic *běd- < *bhoidh- and *běd- < *bʰēdʰ- were contaminated (cf. Anikin 1998: 39). In the latter case OCS běda `distress' and `necessity' would continue different roots. This is a possibility which cannot be excluded. The hypothesis that Lith. baidýti `to scare' < *bʰiH- `to fear' is cognate with *bē̌dà and *běditi (cf. Trubačëv II: 55-56) must be rejected, if only on formal grounds. \{3\} Demiraj prefers *bʰeidʰ-i-s to an ā-stem (1997: 94).