Re: Cadaver < lat. cadere?

On 2025-05-17, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> 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                          naddy@mips.inka.de