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

Re: Re: [tied] Osthoff's Law and T > M in Gaulish loanwords (was: Is Basque IE?)

Expand Messages
  • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
    Erratum: tna Easter Bunny Corrige: than Easter Bunny
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 7, 2013
      Erratum: tna Easter Bunny
      Corrige: than Easter Bunny
    • dgkilday57
      ... Bhr.:You ll admit a spelling for /ar-gi-(j)o/ is better conceivable [than] Easter Bunny Perhaps, but I get suspicious when Sievers Law is invoked
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 17, 2013


        ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

        2013/10/8, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:
        > 2013/9/20, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:
        >> >
        >> >> [...]
        >> >>
        >> >> [DGK]
        >> >> But _landa_ 'campo, pieza de terreno' occurs widely in Basque (Bisc.,
        >> >> Guip.,
        >> >> Aezc., Lab., High & Low Nav., Ronc.) and appears to continue Gaul.
        >> >> *landa:
        >> >> directly. Moreover a Late Gaul. *lanna would have given Bq. *lana,
        >> >> since
        >> >> Latin _anno:na_ gives Bq. _anoa_. If _larra-_, _larre_ is borrowed from
        >> >> Gaulish, it probably continues a collective *la:rja: (or *larja: by
        >> >> Osthoff's shortening) 'flat area' from *la:ro- 'flat surface, floor',
        >> >> PIE
        >> >> *pl.h2-ró- or *pléh2-ro-. (Latin _pla:nus_ can represent *pl.h2-nó- and
        >> >> provides no evidence for a heteroclite, pace Matasovic', only for
        >> >> different
        >> >> suffixes.)
        >> >>
        >> > Bhr.:
        >> >
        >> > All right, I just wonder why Osthoff's shortening in *la:rja:
        >> > (wouldn't it rather develop a Sievers' variant *la:rija:?)
        >> >
        >> > DGK:
        >> >
        >> > In his draft glossary Matasovic' has several examples of heavy syllables
        >> > not
        >> > developing a Sievers' variant, e.g. Proto-Celtic *argjo- 'white; snow' >
        >> > Gaul. Argio-talus, etc.
        > Bhr.: Are You sure that Argiotalus is /ar-gjo/ and not /ar-gi-(j)o/?
        > DGK: No, of course not, just as I cannot disprove the existence of the
        > Easter Bunny.

        Bhr.:You'll admit a spelling <Argio-> for /ar-gi-(j)o/ is better
        conceivable [than] Easter Bunny

        Perhaps, but I get suspicious when Sievers' Law is invoked and it only involves *j and *w (or *j alone in Ringe's treatment of Proto-Germanic).  Properly understood, Sievers' Law should affect all the resonants, *j, *w, *r, *l, *m, and *n, in post-heavy position.  When most of the evidence is missing and explained as effaced by subsequent processes, it is like the Easter Bunny's missing tracks.

        >> >[DGK] I do not know whether Osthoff would be applicable
        >> > in this time frame; hence my parenthetical guess. A Basque borrowing
        >> > would
        >> > not distinguish length.
        >> >
        >> > Your own
        > Bhr.: van Windekens'
        >> > [DGK] etymology of _glo:ria_ does not involve Sievers.
        > Bhr.: nor Osthoff
        >> > [DGK] My problem is
        >> > that I never heard of being "green with glory",
        > Bhr.: "bright, enlightened with glory"
        > DGK: With a greenish tint? That might work for Popeye, whose glory came from
        > spinach. This etymology is only marginally better than van Windekens'
        > explanation of Greek _thálassa_ as 'flat water' (BzN 1:200, 1949-50), using
        > IE *tel-, *akWa:- with his Pelasgian soundlaws.

        Bhr.: "Only marginally better" includes omitting the reference to an
        unattested language like Pelasgian, that for You is evidently no
        problem at all

        Van Windekens' Pelasgian is one to which I do NOT subscribe.

        >> > [DGK] so I find the route Gaulish
        >> > *klovesja: (vel sim.) > Ligurian > Old Latin more plausible, as with
        >> > _gladius_. However, in order to investigate this theory that initial
        >> > Gaulish tenues became mediae when borrowed into Ligurian (which I now
        >> > attribute to differences in initial consonant strength, NOT aspiration),
        >> > I
        >> > need to get a copy of J.U. Hubschmied's long paper on Late Gaulish in
        >> > Vox
        >> > Romanica vol. 3 from the university library. Once I get this paper, it
        >> > may
        >> > turn out that counter-examples kill my theory.
        > Bhr.: if You formulate Your theory in these very terms, I don't think
        > You'll find counter-examples there, because Hubschmied doesn't mention
        > Ligurian
        > DGK: No, but I had to peruse the paper to ensure that nothing deduced by H.
        > for late or dialectal Gaulish could explain the anlaut-voicing without
        > further assumptions. It appears that my theory is still viable. Two other
        > issues in the paper are worth noting. First, H. places *-eu- > *-ou- within
        > the history of Gaulish, against Matasovic' who considers it a Proto-Celtic
        > shift. If H. is correct about Tissiniva < Gaul. *tegesa newia (pp. 49-50)
        > and Leuca/Leu(g)k < *leuca: (86-7), it becomes difficult to accept M.'s
        > contention that -eu- is merely a "spelling variant" of -ou- in old names.

        Bhr.: You perhaps remember I completely agree

        Yes, but you also lump Ligurian together with Celtic, which amounts to extending the base of Celtic downward until it becomes Western IE itself.  Since I distinguish Ligurian from Celtic, the question whether Gaulish had -eu- in historical times is not trivial, and separate from the attestation of Ligurian *nevio- in Nevius and Neviodu:num.

        On a related matter, I see that Hubschmied earlier (Ausdrücke der Milchwirtschaft gall. Ursprungs, VRom 1:88-105, 1936) was forced to posit a bifurcate development of Late Gaulish intervocalic stops (notes 2 & 3, pp. 99-100).  He has (Late) Gaul. *jutta corresponding to Ins. Celt. *juta:, but Late Gaul. *ridda for *rita:, by-form of _ritus_ 'ford', in the place-name Riddes where the ancient road crosses the Rhone.  I would explain *jutta by Stokes' Law (which, pace tua et Zupitzas, Stokes intended as having the same outputs as Kluge's Law).  But *ridda can be understood as the form in which the Ligurians borrowed (Late) Gaul. *rita.  Likewise, H. did a good job of showing Late Gaul. *tw- < *dw- and *-pr- < *-br-, so *-bbr- from the same earlier *-br- is a bifurcation, until we recognize that the Romance forms requiring *-bbr- in the word for 'two-handled tub, firkin, Zober' (from Gaul. *dwibros, Late Gaul. *twipros elsewhere) are restricted to Liguria and adjacent Piedmont and Lombardy.  If the remnant Ligurians borrowed *rita as *ridda, they could equally well have borrowed *twipros as *twibbros.  Recognizing both Stokes' Law for Celtic and the voicing (with word-internal gemination) of Gaulish tenues when borrowed into Ligurian could clear up much of the difficulty with these footnotes.
        > DGK: Second, H.'s treatment of the Interlaken/Inderlappen problem (pp. 52-8) is
        > flawed by ad-hoc assumptions (Celt. *-kw-, not *-p-, maintained by
        > Systemzwang, then Late Gaul. *-gw- > *-bb- > Alem. -pp-). Harald
        > Bichlmeier's more recent explanation (HS 122:257-62, 2009) is not much
        > better. I think an Illyrian place-name makes the most sense, but the
        > prospects of convincing Celticists of this are dim.
        Bhr.: Sorry, I fear I don't understand Your last sentence; could You
        reformulate it, please?

        What I mean by a dim prospect is a low probability.  My arguments about Hinderlappa (to be presented in a separate post) are not likely to convince most of today's Celticists, who have little or no interest in Pre-Celtic languages.  Similarly I doubt they would attach any significance to *ridda or *twibbros.

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