Re: Morimarusa

From: dgkilday57
Message: 65622
Date: 2010-01-12

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > First, regarding (unshifted) Proto-Germanic long tenues, I believe
> > > they pass through Grimm-Verner-Kluge unscathed to remain Common
> > > Germanic long tenues. I have only two examples. The first, Gothic
> > > <atte:kan> 'to touch' (commonly cited in the simplex, which is not
> > > attested)
> >
> > I didn't know that. Do you think the Romance *attak- etc root is related?
>
> No. That one appears to come from Gmc. *stakkan- 'pole, stake, stick' by three or more routes. Gothic *stakka is behind Spanish <estaca>, Frankish *stakka is behind Old French <estache>, and Langobardic *tacca (in my opinion) is behind Old Italian <attaccare>. I do not see the /s/ falling out in Old It. or in Gmc., but in Lgb. The sense development is parallel first to English "stick together", second to "join battle".

On second thought, it is not necessary to assume that Langobardic lost the /s/. Instead *-taccare could have been extracted (in the Vulgar Latin dialect of Lombardy ca. 500) from *distaccare or *ex(s)taccare 'to stake out' vel sim. by false division. There are other Romance examples of losing /s/ by this mechanism. And the VL sense of *attaccare could have been 'to impale, drive a stake into, execute (a vampire?) by staking' etc. from which the Old Italian sense would follow by semantic devaluation. No double sense development such as I proposed above would then be necessary.

DGK