Re: [tied] Re: root *pVs- for cat

At 5:14:06 AM on Thursday, July 26, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 4:52:35 AM on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> At 4:40:54 PM on Sunday, July 22, 2007, tgpedersen
>>>> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>>> The decision what was foreign and non-foreign was
>>>>> mine.

>>>> Failure to point this out, especially when the decision
>>>> is contentious, is ... sloppy, to put a better face on
>>>> it than I think is actually justifiable.

>>> Who else should decide it?

>> Where did I say that you shouldn't make the decisions for
>> yourself? The problem is that you presented your decisions
>> as if they all went without saying, when in fact several of
>> them were distinctly questionable -- not necessarily wrong,
>> but certainly questionable. This is *not* something that I
>> should have to check your source(s) to discover.

> The fact that you question them does not make them
> questionable;

I am hardly the only one to have done so. Were that the
case, I'd be questioning your linguistic judgement instead
of your intellectual honesty.

> in particular because you steadfastly ignore that words in
> Germanic in p- are not Germanic words and words in Latin
> with root vowel -a- are (with exceptions) not Latin.

Both are completely irrelevant to any point that I have
tried to make. An Irish borrowing from Latin or English is
not evidence of Irish (or Insular Celtic) contact with some
NWBlock language, irrespective of whether the word is native
to Latin or Germanic, respectively.

[...]

>>> From your tentative position which is not a position,
>>> how would you explain the many words in p- in both p-
>>> and q-Celtic? [...]

>> The DIL has only about 20 pages of <p-> words,

> 'Only' 20 pages, in a language which abolished p-.

Yes, only: that's 20 out of about 2500, a very small
fraction. And that same language did a lot of borrowing.

Here are the headwords on the first page: P; páb(h)áil;
páb(h)álta; pács; pagáil; págán; págánacht; págánda;
págánta; págántacht; paidir; paidrín; paigiment; pailiris;
pailis; paillium; pailliún; pailm; ?pailt; páin; paintél;
paintér; páipér; paipinseóg(h); páirc.

The article <P> is about the letter. <Pács> is a borrowing
of Latin <pax>; <págán> is from Latin <paganus>, and
<págánacht>, <págánda>, <págánta>, and <págántacht> are
derivatives; <pailis> is from ME <palis> 'a palisade';
<paillium> is from Latin <pallium>; <pailliún> is from
French <pavillon>; <pailm> is from Latin <palma>; <páin> is
from Latin <panis>; <paintél> is a variant of <paintér>,
from ME <panter> 'a trap, a snare', from OFr <pantiere>;
<paipinseóg(h)> is from OFr <papingay>; and <páirc> is from
Romance (e.g., OFr <parc>. <Paidir> is a variant of
<paiter>, from Latin <pater>, and <pailiris> is metathesized
from <pairilis> 'paralysis, palsy, from Romance. <Páipér>
is probably directly from English <paper>, possibly from OFr
or Latin. <Páb(h)áil>, its derivative <páb(h)álta>, and
<pagáil> are probably all formed on English <pave>, and
<paigiment> on <pavement>. That leaves only the uncertain
<pailt> and <paidrín> 'a rosary', which must be derived from
Latin <pater>.

>> most of which are readily identifiable as loanwords from
>> Latin, Romance, or English, or derivatives thereof.

> Some are, other matches are Procrustean.

No. When I wrote 'readily identifiable', I meant exactly
that: loanwords like <págán> 'a pagan, a heathen', or <páin>
'bread'.

[...]

Brian