--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "indravayu" <sonno3@...> wrote:
> > Is there any particular reason not to consider paraf a borrowing
> > Latin para:re 'to prepare, provide, procure' (as did Loth)? >
Bret. paret from Lat. para:tus.
> If you are referring to Loth's "Les Mots Latins Dans Les Langues
> Brittoniques", I have to say that I don't find this book to be
> completely reliable.
Really? I don't think it's that bad (especially when we bear in mind
its age - it's from 1892). Anyway, this has no direct bearing on
whether or not par- is borrowed from Latin.
Regardless, Pokorny (IEW) has it as a native
> Celtic root and I think that most scholars these days follow him
> this matter
Pokorny derives W par- from a reduplicated present (with
dereduplication), LIV derives it from the root aorist. We should
however remember that hardly any form of the paradigms involved
would actually produce PCelt. *kWar- (as syllabic -r- would vocalize
as -ri- in the 1st and 2nd plural).
The 3pl. *kWr-ént could, with "Lindeman" or analogical vocalization
as *kWr.-ént, produce PCelt. *kWar-e/o-, but that's about it.
And W par- is absent from Schumacher's Primärverben, as far as I can
see. I take this as an indication that he does not derive it from an
athematic PIE *kWer-/*kWr-.