[tied] Re: Torsten's theory reviewed
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>I don't think Trask meant that to cover mere repetition, but no matter.
> At 5:41:25 AM on Thursday, September 30, 2010, Torsten wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
> >> At 6:19:44 AM on Sunday, September 26, 2010, Torsten wrote:
> >>> But "arogis deda / alagu Ã¾leuba dedun" with two
> >>> separate(?) meanings of "do" sounds contrived.
> >> Not separate meanings; the first instance is (on this
> >> reading) merely pleonastic.
> > Can't be, it's the same verb
> Of course it can. In a linguistic context 'pleonastic'
> means '[i]nvolving the use of words which are redundant, in
> that they merely repeat information already expressed
> elsewhere' (Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in
> I could also have said 'redundant'.If that is what you meant, I think you should have.
> >>> Now if the scrabble rules allow me to subtract aNot true; see below.
> >>> consonant, I think I'll pick a -t- instead of an -l-.
> >> They don't allow you to do so arbitrarily. Both <Gis-> and
> >> <-gis> are very well attested Gmc. name themes; <-gist> is
> >> not.
> >> Moreover, there was a fairly common <l>-suffix byYour sentence was a claim. It didn't contain a point.
> >> which themes could be extended, so it would not be very
> >> surprising if an inherent final <-l> were sometimes lost.
> >> For that matter, it's not clear that anything has to be
> >> lost: the 'arrow-shaft, beam, staff' word may be an <-l>
> >> diminutive of an ablaut variant of the 'spear' word, in
> >> which case the theme *gÃ¦sa- may simply continue the variant
> >> itself.
> >>> Put differently, it might be plausible, but so is the
> >>> -gist interpretation, given the facts at hand.
> >> A rune carver's error for an unattested <Arogast>
> > Your claim. You forget the 'd' is actually there.
> You missed the point.
> What is actually there is <Arogisd>;The <i> is there. That it is there by error is your claim.
> if this represents unattested <Arogast>, both the <i> and
> the <d> require explanation. The <d> can be explained as
> the result of confusion following the High German sound
> shift, but the <i> remains an error.
> >> does not seem to me as plausible as a reading that usesMaybe you should check your books again.
> >> only attested elements. Support for a genuine <-gist>
> >> theme is nil.
And why are you so sure <Eregist> and <Erithegistus> are
just errors for <Fregist> and <Frithegistus> and no cognates of Arogisd?
> > You wish.If you say so.
> I don't really care one way or the other.
> However, the wordI don't think so. The supposed PGmc. *gasti- has a cognates in Latin and Slavic, the supposed *gaista- doesn't have any outside Germanic.
> in 'Beowulf' certainly doesn't offer any such support, and
> not just because it doesn't appear there as a name theme.
> Whether that <gist> represents <giest> 'guest' or <gÃ¦:st>
> 'spirit', the form is OE, and so far as I can tell not
> standard for any OE dialect. The PGmc. sources are *gastiz
> and *gaistaz, respectively, neither of which can be expected
> to produce <gist> in a southern German context.
'gista schw. V. 'gast sein, Ã¼bernachten' (< *gastjon); also eig. *gesta zu erwarten; dass aber gista die lautform ist, schreibt man dem einfluss von verba wie sigla, nista, virÃ°a zu (s. E. LidÃ©n BB 21, 1895, 115), nicht befriedigend, weil es mit diesen Zw. kaum anknÃ¼pfungspunkte gibt. Eine erklÃ¤rung aus einer grundform *ga-wistÅn (Sturtevant, Lang. 6, 1930, 257) ist abzulehnen. Eher kÃ¶nnte man an systemzwang denken, weil das grundwort gestr lautete und solche denominativa umlaut zeigen.
- nisl. fÃ¤r. nnorw. gista, fÃ¤r. auch gesta, aschw. gista, gÃ¦sta.
- ae. giestian 'gast sein'.
- vgl. gestr.'
So apparently 'gist' is not just OE. The fact that the supposed PIE *ghosti- has <o> in the a stressed syllable also points to the word being of non-IE origin, possibly Uralic.
The semantic deviation of the
North Saami guos'se -ss- "guest, stranger"
from the descendants of
Finno-Permic *kanta "people; mate, friend"
which UEW gives as a reason for excluding it, is no bigger than that between the two senses "enemy" and "guest" accepted by IEists. I think that is the reason for the general vacillation of the vowel of the *gast-/gist- word: it is a loan from a non-IE language. The limited distribution of the word in IE points in the same direction.
- At 9:00:13 AM on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, Torsten wrote:
> I don't want to open this thread again; I'm adding thisHarrison & Harrison, _Surnames of the United Kingdom_, is
> posting to the tree since I found an authoritative quote
> on the subject, and I'd like to be able to locate that
> quote in the future.
> And it is:
> Harrison & Harrison
> Surnames of the United Kingdom:
> a concise etymological dictionary
not authoritative. It is in fact somewhat notorious for
etymologizing on the modern forms of surnames, and this
entry is an example. <Pendegast> is from <Prendergast>, the
name of a village and parish in Pembrokeshire and, as
<Prenderguest>, of what is now a farm in Berwickshire; early
instances of the byname include <de Prendergat'> 1225, <de
Prendrogest> 1354, <de Prendergest> ~1170, ~1240, 1325, and
<de Prendregast> 1296. The Scottish place-name is
associated at an early date with an Anglo-Norman family who
may have brought it from Wales. The etymology is unknown,
but the name is apparently P-Celtic, and the first element
may be <pren> 'tree'.