Re: Gemination in Celtic

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 56174
Date: 2008-03-29

----- Original Message -----
From: Anders R. Joergensen
> pott- "pottery" < *kwoH2-t-eH2
> k_w_H2 as in Greek kaFiƓ "to burn"

What Celtic words are you referring to?

French pot for example.
> bukk- "male"
> Tsigane, avestique buz < *bu-g-

I take it you wouldn't consider Celt. *bukko- as a loan from Germ.
where both *bukka- and *bukkan- are reconstructible, from an n-stem
with suffixal ablaut and gemination (as has recently been sugested by
Schumacher, Keltische Forschungen 2).

Do you then take the Germanic word to be a loan from Celtic? Or does
your gemination rule "H2-C (unvoiced) > -CC- unvoiced" also cover
I consider most agricultural words in Germanic
are Celtic (or maybe Baltic) LWs.
I don't think this law applies to Germanic
otherwise, it would mean Germanic and Celtic are
close PIE branches but I don't really think so.


> The point is Eastern PIE is voiced
> when Celtic is geminate.
> This is a LAW not expressive gemination.

Did you look for possible counter-examples to this LAW?

What would a counter-example be ?

> lakk- "slack"
> Greek lag-aros
> One of the clearest examples.
> Cf. peH2-g/k- about the same.

Isn't this ModIr. _lag_ 'weak'. Then it has /g/ from *gg, not *kk,
whatever the etymology.

> Breton stuc'h "arrowhead" < stukk-
> German stechen < *st_g < *st_?k-
> skrt tud-ati "to sting" < *tu?-t-
> This example is more complex
> but the voiced -d- has -kk- in Celtic.

Breton /y/ <u> is usually from *ou (*eu) or *oi. So you need to have
this and not simple *u. Anyway, this etymology isn't exactly beyond
doubt, is it?
This example is rather weak
I agree