From: tgpedersen
Message: 59355
Date: 2008-06-21
>I've been playing with the idea that they were endingless locatives of
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > _The Bronze Tables of Iguvium_ [1959], p. 244.
> > > > >
> > > > > dei . crabouie . persei . tuer . perscler . uaseto . est .
> > > > > pesetomest . peretomest / frosetomest . daetomest . tuer .
> > > > > perscler . uirseto . auirseto . uas . est . di . grabouie .
> > > > > persei . mersei . esu . bue / peracrei . pihaclu . pihafei
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Jupiter Grabovius, if in thy sacrifice there hath been any
> > > > > omission, any sin, any transgression, any damage, any
> > > > > delinquency, if in thy sacrifice there be any seen or
> > > > > unseen fault, Jupiter Grabovius, if it be right, with this
> > > > > perfect ox as a propitiatory offering may purification be
> > > > > made.'
> > > >
> > > > BTW Buck calls 'tuer perscler' a genitive, can that be true?
> > >
> > > Yes. This appears to be a partitive genitive, whose scope in
> > > Umbrian was considerably extended. Buck (p. 195 in the 1928
> > > edition) calls two other examples "bolder than anything in
> > > Latin":
> >
> > ...
> > That was nice to know, but the thing that puzzled me was two -r
> > suffixes in an expression which is translated as a locative. Is
> > there any connection to Germanic locative -r in demonstratives
> > etc?
>
> No. The Gmc. -r is an adverbial formant which actually was *-r, as
> seen in Lith. <kur~>, Old Lat. <quo:r>, Lat. <cu:r>. The Umbrian
> gen. sg. in -r is a rhotacized -s, which appears as such in earlier
> Umbrian as well as Oscan.
> > > > > W. Meyer-Lübke, _Wiener Studien_ 25:105ff., observed thathttp://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-betr_gen.html
> > > > > Spanish has not only reflexes of L. <pecca:re> etc. with
> > > > > the expected moral meanings, but also <peca> 'freckle,
> > > > > speck, spot' and <pecoso> 'freckled'; he also provided a
> > > > > gloss "pecosus graece leprosus". Thus he argued in effect
> > > > > that <pecca:re> is a denominative to *pecca 'mark, spot,
> > > > > blemish, macula'. A. Walde, LEW s.v. <pecco:>, rejected
> > > > > this idea on the grounds that L. <pecca:re> is
> > > > > intransitive, <macula:re> transitive, and so an original
> > > > > intr. sense of <pecca:re>, such as 'stumble' from
> > > > > *ped(i)-ka:-, should be sought. However, Walde's criticism
> > > > > can be easily sidestepped. Assuming *pecca 'mark, spot,
> > > > > blemish' in pre-classical Latin, we derive a regular
> > > > > transitive denominative *pecca:re 'to mark, spot, blemish',
> > > > > and regular deverbative nouns <pecca:tus> 'act of
> > > > > blemishing; blemish; fault' and <pecca:tum> 'result of
> > > > > blemishing; blemish; bad mark; sin'.
> > > > > If *pecca and *pecca:re were replaced by <macula> and
> > > > > <macula:re> in Roman Latin, say around 200 BCE, surviving
> > > > > only in provincial Hispanic Latin, the derived nouns could
> > > > > have been reinterpreted in classical Latin as deverbatives
> > > > > to <pecca:re> 'to commit a fault, go wrong, sin'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Combining all the evidence from Latin, Umbrian, and
> > > > > Spanish, it seems best to regard L. <pecca:re> as
> > > > > indirectly based on a noun *pecca 'mark, spot, blemish'
> > > > > unconnected with *ped- 'foot'. A better source for this
> > > > > noun is *pek^- 'to set in order; decorate, make pretty;
> > > > > make pleasant, joyful' which we find in English <fair> (OE
> > > > > <fæger>, PGmc *fagraz, PIE *pok^rós), Lithuanian <púos^iu>
> > > > > (*po:k^ejo:) 'I decorate', Middle Irish <a:il> (*po:k^li-)
> > > > > 'pleasant', etc. Most Italic words in -ko/ka:- use /i/ as
> > > > > a connecting vowel, but a few have the suffix attached
> > > > > directly to a consonant, like L. <juvenca> 'heifer', U.
> > > > > acc. sg. <iveka>, <iuenga> 'id.', and some ethnonyms, U.
> > > > > <Naharkum> 'Narcan', <Turskum> 'Tuscan'. If it belongs
> > > > > here, *pecca could represent a *pek^-ka: 'beauty mark;
> > > > > freckle', acquiring a derogatory sense 'bad mark; blemish;
> > > > > fault' in the specialized language of Italic ritual,
> > > > > but preserved as Sp. <peca> in practically its original
> > > > > sense.
> >
> > Why the de-gemination? And why not connect it directly to NWB
> > *paik- etc
> > ?In general, I don't get that line of reasoning. Data is data. In
>
> Degemination is regular in Spanish; cf. <boca> 'mouth', <seco>
> 'dry', etc. As long as I have a halfway plausible derivation from
> a root listed by Pokorny in the IEW, I have no reason to derive it
> from NWB; obscurum per obscurius esset ...
> >Even worse, since unlike 'mot populaire' it is not interpretable
> > > > > > There's the *-k-. Note that mancus, like manus, with
> > > > > > its /a/ must be a 'mot populaire'. So would then peccatus
> > > > > > etc.
> > >
> > > I don't know how seriously this "mot populaire" business can be
> > > taken as a grab-bag for words with /a/-vocalism.
> >
> > It's a label and E.-M. is pretty consistent about it. The
> > interesting part is whether they represent loans from another
> > language.
>
> Some of those /a/-words are widely distributed in IE. See what
> E.-M. list under <cachinno:>, which they consider a "mot expressif"
> (a cop-out, like "mot populaire").
> > > Are we to suppose that the PIE upper crust spoke a refinedThat's a bit loose. Which environments? The stems in /a/ I've seen
> > > literary standard, carefully minding their /e/'s and /o/'s,
> > > while the ham-tongued huddled masses could only grunt out /a/'s?
> >
> > PPIE *a > PIE *e/o/zero according to theories by Møller and in
> > this group by Glen Gordon and Miguel, IIRC. The PIE ablaut vowel
> > has to come from somewhere; *a is the most convenient place in
> > the vowely neighborhood, accordingly all words with PIE *a (apart
> > from those from schwa secundum) are foreign or external to the
> > language. Piotr tries to avoid that by sticking an extra vowel
> > into a PPIE *i *a *u system. I don't think that holds. PIE had
> > i-, u- and thematic stems, that would be PPIE i-, u-, and
> > a-stems, which would make sense. English has done something
> > similar to its *a, it's now partly *e, partly *o (approx.);
> > something similar has happened in Danish although (approx. *ä a),
> > with the added refinement that the further apart they are, the
> > more working class Copenhagen it is. So you got it the wrong
> > way round ;-).
>
> No, _I_ didn't; E.-M. and Chantraine and the other advocates of
> "mots populaires" did.
>
> I believe that Middle PIE /a/ remained /a/ in Late PIE _at least_
> in closed monosyllables, rather than being deflected to /e/ or /o/
> or reduced to zero, _probably_ in some other closed syllables, and
> _possibly_ it was restored by analogy in certain environments
> almost as soon as it was deflected or lost.
> That is, I do not believe that any stage of PIE ever lacked /a/English does, with a few exceptions.
> entirely.
> I also do not believe that we need to resort to wholesale borrowingHere's what I think:
> to explain words with /a/. The Latin non-denominative statives, for
> example, comprise a sufficiently large, important, and coherent
> group that it is incredible that they should have been borrowed
> from Paleo-Venetic or whatever. Unreasonably large-scale borrowing
> is another cop-out.
> > Yes, I think those IE languages which arrived earliest in EuropeWith that proviso, I'll stick to my explanation.
> > probably retained *a where all the later ones (except IIr.) had
> > *e/o/zero. IIr. might be from a mix of a lower class a-language
> > with a higher-class one with *e/o/zero; the latter one to explain
> > the secondary palatalizations. A mix, I think, is a better
> > explanation, *a > *e/o/zero > *a is too weird.
>
> Sanskrit certainly has some mixing, but since short /e/ and /o/ are
> absent from the phonology (with old /e/ showing itself through the
> palatalizations), I see no way to escape concluding that
> Indo-Iranian did indeed reduce the three-way distinction, /a/e/o/,
> to /a/. Lots of weird things happen in this business.
> >Nah, I think it has to do with sacrifice. Sacrifice was an important
> > > > For semantic reasons, I suspect the whole mess of *bak-
> > > > "staff", *pek- "mark", *pak- "pole, construct, area", *mak-
> > > > "spot, blemish" to be ultimately related (*p- > *b- > *m-
> > > > happened in Basque). The fact that the suffix of *peþ-k- or
> > > > *pex-k- (or from *paþ-k-/pax-k-, Venetic(?) *paik-
> > > > "deceive" in the Kuhn quote?) is of the form *-k-, not *-Vk-
> > > > sets them apart, which speaks for loan status (I suspect
> > > > stops in PIE were spirantized before other stops, cf
> > > > Sabellan, Iranian and Germanic; Germanic generalized it).
> > >
> > > I don't see how one original root could appear three or four
> > > different ways, unless we are dealing with musical instruments,
> > > 'guitar', 'mandolin', and the like, with names getting borrowed
> > > back and forth all over the place.
> >
> > I think that *bak- thing must have been something pretty special.
> > You might enter into the world of my delusions here:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48817
> > The Basques had no reason to borrow a word for an ordinary stick
> > from the Romans, it is more likely 'herabgesunkenes Kulturgut'.
>
> They probably borrowed it in the specialized sense 'military staff'
> (for whacking recalcitrant privates, as Clearchus did in Xenophon's
> account) or the like, and semantic devaluation followed. That sort
> of thing happens all the time.
> > > Here we are dealing with common words for common notions, notThank you for that example. In the future we will only have to prove
> > > exotic instruments.
> >
> > I disagree. Common words don't need borrowing in intact societies.
>
> I thought that was my point. If you want synchronous examples of
> related words beginning with p-, b-, and m- in a non-mutating
> language, you almost have to go to the realm of musical
> instruments. English has <pandore>, <bandore>, and <mandolin>, and
> I am too tired to dig around for other examples.
> English <pud>, <bud>, and <mud> cannot be etymologically relatedSurprise: Da. budding "pudding".
> this way.
> > > Sanskrit and Gaulish both seem to have added the *-ko- suffixBrøndum-Nielsen provides this list:
> > > directly to stems; in Latin -ico- has been generalized, but the
> > > -i- originally belonged to /i/-stems. If PIE had no double
> > > stops, you need some mechanism to create all the examples in
> > > Latin and Greek. I prefer to think (very provisionally) that
> > > NWB produced geminates by regressive assimilation of inherited
> > > double stops. That could explain *pitt- 'fruit pit' from
> > > *(s)pikto- 'pecked away'(?), cf. G. <Specht> 'woodpecker', and
> > > a few others,
> >
> > The Svea dialects (around Stockholm) geminated spontaneously,
> > unlike the Göta ones (around Göteborg). Swedish mixed them up, as
> > a result we have:
> > Sw. mosse Da. mose "bog", but
> > Sw. påse, Da. pose "bag"
>
> I hope I can remember that example. It will probably prove useful.
> > > perhaps even your Chatti as *kagh-to:s 'those joined together,I assume a Venetic family. Therefore I have a lot of leeway (and
> > > federated', cf. L. <cohum> 'strap joining yoke to harness',
> > > Gaul. <caio> 'rampart, retaining wall'. But of course all NWB
> > > etymologies are highly speculative, rainy-day stuff.
> >
> > I mostly tend to believe in some connection with the *kant- "edge,
> > division" words.
>
> *kant- appears to be non-IE West Mediterranean borrowed into
> Celtic. If you assume loss of preconsonantal nasals in NWB, again
> you must throw away *pink- 'kleiner Finger', one of Kuhn's best
> examples.
> > > Another possibility is that Italic *pekka: was originally aSome died young.
> > > hypocoristic, 'dear little spot', formed regularly on a longer
> > > derivative of *pek^-, and there was no pre-Italic *pek^-ka:.
> >
> > Possible, but I still think there are so few words in Latin with
> > *- k- suffix, that they should be suspected of other origin.
> >
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48943
> > This is supposed to explain my view of spirantization of stops
> > before stops. The idea is that in such a 'low' word, scraps of
> > earlier stages would be sucked up by later arriving languages.
>
> The "mot populaire" again. But all IE languages are equally old,
> so why would the ones which happened to become extinct be moreThe further you go back in the family, the weirder cousins will look.
> likely to retain these scraps?