--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> But if the root in question exists in Germanic (*gHeud- gives e.g.
> German giessen) and explains the attested Germanic forms, (all
based
> on *gut- < *gHud-), why propose a loan from Greek in the first
place?
> Some of the Greek words you quote are related to <kHeo:>, but most
> aren't, and are just "phonetically similar". None of them throws
any
> light on Graeco/Latin <goth-> as a substitute for <gut-/got->, so
> what's the purpose of the whole exercise?
>
> Piotr
>
This, though an aside, might be relevant:
Tacitus: Germania 1,43,1
"Behind the back of the Marcomanni and the Quadi the Marsigni, Cotini,
Osi and Buri close up. Of these the Marsigni and Buri are similar to
the Suebi, while the Gallic language of the Cotini and the Pannonian
language of the Osi plus the fact that they tolerate taxes, prove
that they cannot be Germanic. These taxes are imposed on them partly
by the Sarmatians, partly by the Quadi - because they are strangers.
The Cotini, even more shamefully, also mine iron ore."
An iron-working people then. *gHeu-d- > *kot-? But that's not Celtic,
of course. Still, it's tempting (postulating a local "east Celtic"
development of stops). But then, as for gH > k and d > t, these
diverse developments present problems too. And there are probably
other "east Celtic" material that speaks againt it.
BTW, why is this iron-mining so shameful? One explanation: With the
technology then, the work is similar to that of the charcoal-burners,
which was a shameful profession also in recent times.
Torsten