Re: [tied] Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"
- I checked the DRAE and it doesn't appear. AFAIK, it's obsolete in Spanish. I've never heard anyone say it. I've only seen it in medieval and early modern Spanish --although in Spain it may be still in use.My memory is rusty but I think I once saw it listed as of Celtic origin BUT that's often a throwaway category.I WOULD also look at forms beginning with /m-/ --remember Spanish muñeca, Portuguese boneca
--- On Fri, 3/15/13, Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...> wrote:
From: Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>
Subject: [tied] Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"
To: "Cybalist" <email@example.com>
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013, 7:47 AMWhat's the etymology of Portuguese bode "he-buck"? It looks superficially to Germanic *bukka-, but Iberic Romance bode would imply something loke *botem, *butem- *Vpotem, *Vputem, where V= any vowel (cf. apotheca > bodega).JS Lopes
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>If the original sense was 'oaken', it could continue *gWl.h2-ko- from an archaic root-noun *gWelh2-s, *gWl.h2- 'oak' otherwise attested in words for 'acorn', Grk. _balanos_, Lat. _glans_ (poss. P-Italic Blandusia), etc. (in Pokorny under *gWel-(3), IEW 472-3).
> 2013/4/3 dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>
> > **
> > --- In email@example.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2013/4/2, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
> > > >
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 2013/3/29, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --- In email@example.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > > >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> (...)
> > > >> >> For beccus I had already proposed, following the suggestions by
> > > >> >> Delamarre 2003: 70 and 80, a root *bek- (or maybe *gWek-) 'sting',
> > > >> >> unless *bekko-s < *gWet-ko-s (cf. *gWet- 'bulge', Pokorny 1959:
> > 481).
> > > >> >
> > (...)
> > > > DGK:
> > > > A more serious objection is that if *-ko- was productive with bare
> > /e/-grade
> > > > roots, there should be no shortage of *-ko-formations with such roots
> > having
> > > > different auslauts, not just those in *-k- or other stops expected to
> > > > assimilate to a suffixal *k-.
> > > >
> > > > Matasovic' refers Celt. *balko- to PIE *bel-, which I do not follow. It
> > > > seems to me that he implicitly assumes a laryngeal root-extension (and
> > I
> > > > have no problem with *-h1 or *-h2) and zero-grade. Of course,
> > *bHelh1/2- or
> > > > *gWelh1/2- would work equally well. But for your desired /e/-grade we
> > must
> > > > manufacture a root *bh2/4el-, *bHh2/4el-, or *gWh2/4el-.
> > >
> > > *Bhr.: You know I prefer long /o/ grade with Osthoff's shortening
> > Yes, but your only argument in favor of /o:/-grade in such words was that
> > I could not disprove it.
> *Bhr.: it's the received view as well; anyway, can You explain *balko-
> with a better (please note "better") reconstruction?
> > > >No, I am only showing that the example is controversial.
> > > > (...)
> > > > Anyhow, your theory of Celtic tenues geminatae needs to be checked for
> > > > plausibility against the frequency of parallel formations from roots
> > which
> > > > do not produce geminates with the same suffixes.
> > > >
> > > > DGK
> > > >
> > > *Bhr.: Handbooks give Russian poperek 'transversal' (Old Church
> > > Slavonic pre:kU) < *per-ko-s and Greek-Indic isogloss *dheh1-ko-,
> > > -kah2 'receptacle' > Old Indic dha:k'a-s, Greek th'e:ke: (unless You
> > > prefer a lengthened grade *dhe:h1-ko-!).
> > The Slavic words could just as well continue *per-kWo-s.
> *Bhr.: this implies You admit that *-kWo- suffixes can be added to e-grade
> roots and that only *-ko- cannot, doesn't it?
> > Latin _facio:_, _fe:ci:_, _factum_ shows that *dHeh1- took aYes, provided the stem is substantival, e.g. Gallo-Latin _ambicus_ 'kind of fish' (Pol. Silv., ms. _ambions_ corrected by Mommsen) against Gaul. _ambis_ 'river' (Non.).
> > /k/-extension, and the Greek-Indic noun could just as well be built on
> > *dHeh1k-.
> > *Bhr.: is there a sequence where a suffix *-ko- can be recognized as such
> instead of either a possible root-enlargement or part of a suffix
> >The */t/ is only a phonetic possibility which K. included.
> > (...)
> > > An instance beyond any doubt is represented by Old Icelandic brj'oskr
> > > 'cartilage', Swiss German briesch 'colostrum', maybe Albanian breshkE
> > > f. 'tortoise' (unless one accepts */ou/ > /e/ instead of /a/ in
> > > non-metaphonetic environments) from root *bhreus- 1 'swell' (Pokorny
> > > 1959: 170-171).
> > Koebler cites only a strong nt. _brj'osk_ 'Knorpel', Gmc. *breu(t)skam.
> *Bhr.: right, my fault in copying; I'm very sorry and beg Your pardon. On
> the other side, */t/ is by no way assured
> > The root could be the simplex *bHreu- 'spriessen, schwellen' (Pok. 169),Yes, *bHreu- with an /s/-extension, but *bHreu-skom needs no extension.
> > making the IE formation *bHreu-skom, not *bHreus-kom.
> Verb stem **brÅ«sana-n *suggests indeed root **bhreus-*
> >True. When time permits I must check the whole material.
> > > I think one single uncontroversial case is sufficient to prove that a
> > > R(e)-ko- scheme is possible (...)
> > (...)
> > As for uncontroversial examples of *R(e)-ko-, there may be some, but I had
> > in mind a statistical analysis of such purported forms within Celtic.
> > Something may be possible but highly improbable.
> > *Bhr.: if You have checked the whole material, please let us know it; if
> You don't, "highly improbable" only expresses an impression of Yours
> >Set.-roots and living /n/-suffixation complicate matters. But obviously I must check the whole material before making any pronouncements. And I must finish my CURRENT projects first, namely a revised theory of secondary labialism in Gmc. (i.e. the 'wolf' problem) and a convincing backdating of Kluge's Law to Old Western IE.
> > > Note also that this case has been made for *gWet-ko-s, which I added
> > > as a merely prudential alternative to *bek-n'o-s with Stokes-Zupitza's
> > > Law; this means that if I weren't be able to justify R(e)-ko- my
> > > reconstruction *bek-n'o-s would become relatively stronger
> > Assuming you could justify *bek- in the first place, as well as Zupitza's
> > formulation of Stokes' Law from a sufficient number of other examples.
> > DGK
> *Bhr.: I can't understand how You explain preserved sequences of media and
> nasal in Celtic if Your "MacBain's Law" predicts *medias geminatas *if the
> accent was before the cluster and Your version of Stokes' Law *tenues
> geminatas *if the accent was after the cluster