Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"

Expand Messages
  • dgkilday57
    ... Yes, we have so far agreed to disagree on this matter. However, if you accept Zupitza s formulation, you are left with a number of Celtic lexemes with
    Message 1 of 75 , Mar 27 6:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
      >
      > 2013/3/22, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
      > >
      > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> A Celtic origin would be phonetically implied by a comparison with
      > >> Bavarian butz, butzel 'person or animal charatcterized by a short and
      > >> thick form' < Germanic *butti-z, *buttila-z < PIE *bhud-n'i-s,
      > >> *bhud-n'i-lo-s: PIE *bhud-n'i-s > Celtic *buddi-s >
      > >> Proto-Ibero-Romance *bodde
      > >>
      > > With the accent after the cluster I would expect Celt. *butti-s by Stokes'
      > > Law. If the accent fell before the cluster I would expect *buddi-s by what
      > > I provisionally (perhaps inappropriately) call MacBain's Law.
      >
      > *Bhr.: You probably remember that I follow Stokes' Law according to
      > Zupitza's formulation, which predicts precisely the opposite outcome
      > (*buddi-s if the accent fell after the cluster, otherwise Celtic
      > *budnis with retained cluster).

      Yes, we have so far agreed to disagree on this matter. However, if you accept Zupitza's formulation, you are left with a number of Celtic lexemes with tenues geminatae which must be explained otherwise. For example, Stokes (IF 2:169) refers Celt. *bukko-s 'he-goat' (OIr _boc_, MW _bwch_, etc.) directly to *bHug[^]-nó-s, making it cognate with the Gmc. words. Matasovic' on the other hand suggests "the Celtic forms might be loanwords from Germanic", and we all know how much you hate borrowing, at least in pre-Roman times.

      Stokes' next example helps clear up another problem with Matasovic'. S. refers OIr _brecc_, MW _brych_, etc. 'speckled, variegated' to Celt. *mrekko-s, from *mreg-nó-s. (We would now write *mrikko-s from *mr.g-nó-s.) He connects this form with Lith. _márgas_ (neglecting the accent) and OIr _mrecht_, OW _brith_, etc. 'variegated, painted', these latter from Celt. *mrekto-s, from *mreg-tó-s. (Again we would write *mrixto-s < *mr.g-t-ós.) M. refers the _brecc_ group instead to PIE *pr.k^-, but cannot explain Celt. *b- for expected *p-. As cognates of _mrecht_ he cites not only Lith. _márgas_ but Grk. _amorbós_ 'dark', the root being PIE *merh2gW-, with loss of the laryngeal in this position in the /o/-grade (illustrated by _amorbós_) being generalized to the zero-grade in *mrgW-tó-s, underlying the Celt. forms.

      In fact Grk. _amorbós_ means 'follower, attendant' and its placement here is an etymological stretch; one must assume 'not speckled' > 'dark' > 'enslaved' > 'servile' or the like. We may presume instead that *pr.k^-nó-s led to OWIE *pr.kkó-s, and *mr.h2g(W)-nó-s to *mr.hkkó-s, both meaning 'speckled', with a contaminated form *mr.kkó-s and analogical quasi-participial *mr.któ-s (perhaps distinguishing 'made speckled, painted' from 'naturally speckled, variegated'). These would lead to Celt. *mrikko-s (OIr *mrecc, later _brecc_, etc.) and *mrixto-s (OIr _mrecht_,etc.). Alternatively, the contamination could have occurred at an early stage of Proto-Celtic, with *ma(:)rk(k)o-s replaced by *mrikko-s under the influence of *frikko-s (thus avoiding confusion with the new word for 'horse', whatever its source).

      Back when Torsten and I discussed Gallo-Latin _beccus_ 'beak', we both agreed with your Master, Johannes Hubschmid (Sard. Stud. 106) that it should be considered non-IE in origin. However, Tristano Bolelli (ID 17:151) attributes derivation from PIE *bHeg- 'to break' to N. van Wijk (IF 24:232-3). In fact, v.W. does not propose such an etymology for _beccus_ in this paper, but argues that Gmc. words including OE _becca_ 'hoe', OHG _bicchen_ 'to pierce', and MHG _becken_ 'to hew' are inherited from *bekk- < *bHeg-n-´- by Kluge's Law, not borrowed from _beccus_ or its Romance derivatives. Nevertheless we may compare this situation with 'buck' and infer that G-L _beccus_ indeed continues PIE *bHeg-nó-s by Stokes' Law. Moreover if Gaul. *bekko- 'beak' was borrowed into early PGmc and regularly shifted to *pekko- (later *pekka-), this noun generating *pekko:(ja)naN (wk. II) 'to peck' and *pekkjanaN (wk. I) 'to pick', we can easily understand ME _pecken_ against MHG _becken_, NHG _Pickel_ against _Bickel_, etc.

      > > However,
      > > goats are not particularly short and thick.
      > >
      > (...)
      > > Perhaps *Baudda 'Beater' became the typical name applied to the dominant male in a herd of horned animals. This would become French dial. _bode_ 'Rind' (which M.-L. tentatively explains "mit anderem Vokal" under REW 1182a _bod_ 'Schallwort zur Bezeichnung des Dicken'). But perhaps the original sense of Fr. dial. _bode_ was 'dominant horned male in a herd', and this passed into use by Sp. and Pg. goatherds. Eventually the sense was weakened to 'male horned animal' and specialized to cattle or goats.
      >
      > *Bhr.: if You concede that 'buck' can proceed from the word for 'ox',
      > You'll also concede that it can proceed from 'Lämmchen' (and that
      > bucks are indeed short in comparison to oxen)

      As Brian pointed out, the sense 'castrated male' for _ox_ is a specialization occurring in historical times; likewise _Rind_ is etymologically 'horned entity', no more implying biological neutrality than _Kind_ or _Weib_. I am suggesting that Fr. dial. _bode_ underwent a similar shift, more like 'bull' > 'head of cattle' > 'ox'.

      And yes, lambs are short compared to oxen, but short and stout? How could they frolic with all those extra pounds?

      DGK
    • dgkilday57
      ... 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
      Message 75 of 75 , May 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
        >
        > 2013/4/3 dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
        > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > 2013/4/2, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
        > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
        > > > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
        > > > >>
        > > > >> 2013/3/29, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
        > >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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?

        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).

        > > > >
        > > > > (...)
        > > > > 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?

        No, I am only showing that the example is controversial.

        > > Latin _facio:_, _fe:ci:_, _factum_ shows that *dHeh1- took a
        > > /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
        > conglomerate?

        Yes, 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.).

        > >
        > > (...)
        > > > 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 */t/ is only a phonetic possibility which K. included.

        > > The root could be the simplex *bHreu- 'spriessen, schwellen' (Pok. 169),
        > > making the IE formation *bHreu-skom, not *bHreus-kom.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > Verb stem **brūsana-n *suggests indeed root **bhreus-*

        Yes, *bHreu- with an /s/-extension, but *bHreu-skom needs no extension.

        > >
        > > > 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

        True. When time permits I must check the whole material.

        > >
        > > > 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

        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.

        DGK
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.