Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 3:37:11 PM on Monday, June 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:06:51 PM on Sunday, June 1, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 6:46:24 AM on Sunday, June 1, 2008, tgpedersen
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Here are some comparanda:
> >>>>> Jysk:
> >>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30336
> >>>>> NWB:
> >>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/list.html
>
> >>>>> I have peppered the various entries (from Kuhn) with
> >>>>> what I could find in Irish, Welsh and Breton
> >>>>> (occurrences in Breton are particularly difficult to
> >>>>> explain as loans from English).
>
> >>>> And the very first one completely misses the obvious
> >>>> source of Irish <peacadh>, Breton <péc'hed>, and Welsh
> >>>> <pechod> (not to mention OIr <peccad>): these are
> >>>> borrowings of Latin <peccatum>.
>
> >>> Yes, we've discussed those before, and my answer now as
> >>> then is that a derivation from Latin is likely, but
> >>> there's the odd chance it goes with the rest of Kuhn's
> >>> items.
>
> >> Must be hell to have to worry about suffocating when all of
> >> the oxygen in your room just happens to end up near the
> >> ceiling.
>
> > Erh? What does that mean?
>
> If you're taking one negligible 'odd chance' seriously, why
> not others?

Huh? Which ones would that be?


..

> >>> For one thing, the geminate in Latin bothers me, [...]
>
> >> It's the result of assimilation: *TK > KK is regular in
> >> Latin.
>
> > In preverb + verb combinations.
>
> >> Weiss gives as examples
>
> >> *ad-gradior 'approach' > aggredior
> >> *ad-causa:- 'charge' > accu:sa:re
> >> *ped-ka:- 'sin' > pecca:re,
>
> >> noting Vedic <pádyate> 'falls' in connection with the
> >> last.
>
> > And *-ka: is? If that's the general rule, how come there
> > are so few geminates in Latin (apart from in preverb +
> > verb combinations)?
>
> How common is *TK in any other context?

If that *-ka: thing had been a real suffix, very common.


Torsten


***

Patrick:

Why not the first element of *ka:-ka:-?



***