> You are right "the Internet things may be really misleading indeed."
Yes, I am, and this may apply to my answer too. The explanation I have given above is exactly the one I had leant at school. And that one might be wrong because it could be not a medVED’ but medvED’. And ED is the one who eats indeed (or probably just the food -- eda). But I do not know what to attach ‘v’ to. As far as the word is very old, its etymology may include a “medv” indeed. In addition to classes at school I talked about etymology of medved’ exactly one time in my life and I even remember the person (not a professional too). And the conclusion was med-ved’ too, not a medv-ed’. Moreover in a Slavic language, probably, Ukrainian one, it is vedmed’ which is looks very like as “knows about honey (med)” or “in charge of honey” and, please, notice the 'v's position. But as far as the wiki insist on eating (ED and not VED) this logical and very neat explanation may appear to be wrong. At least I began to doubt about it and got up to turn back the computer to write this additional elaboration, a kind of to save my reputation.
So, if you are probably professionally interested it would be better to double check this very case. Personally I incline to med-ved’ or ved-med’ even if it is not 100% correct.
