Re: Portuguese farpa "barb" < *bHardHa?

From: dgkilday57
Message: 70065
Date: 2012-09-18

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Portuguese <farpa> means "barb", as in <arame farpado>, "barbed wire". Could be <farpa> related to barba "beard"? Usual etymologies consider it as from Arabian or Germanic.
> > > >
> > > > JS Lopes
> > > >
> > > The E word barb << barba, but in L the words barba = beard, and forfex = scissors are irregular, as regular changes of:
> > >
> > > *
> > > ...
> > > bhordha:
> > > phortha:
> > > forTa:
> > > forfa:
> > > forva:
> > > forba:
> > >
> > > would be expected, but isn't found.
> > >
> > > An assim. f-v > f-f or v-v appears to be the cause (sim. to kW-p > kW-kW , etc.), so *farfa besides barba is just as likely as forfex, with rf > rp being regular in (some?, or opt./dia./irregular?) Romance a good possibility.
> > >
> > Obviously Latin <forfex> is a Sabinism.
>
> There's nothing obvious about it.

To those suffering from obsessive-compulsive optional-soundlaw disorder (OCOSD), the obvious becomes opaque.

> The expected *forbex is reflected in Tuscan <fo`rbice>.
>
> I didn't say anything excluding an additonal *forbex, or many others, above.
>
> >
> This did not become *borbex, nor did <forbea> 'food' (Fest.) become *borbea, so simple assimilation cannot explain <barba>.
>
> I said it was irregular (just like forfex). The changes p-kW > p-p or kW-kW are both seen in L, also with no explanation. In a similar way to f-v, qui:nque beside prope can not be explained by anything but optionality, since borrowing from, say, P-Celt. or Q-Celt. for both (and every other word with p-kW) are unreasonably unlikely. Similarly, if I posit dis. in formica from m-m it doesn't mean every word with m-m HAD to undergo dis., too.

Latin <forfex> is no more "irregular" than, say, Middle High German <wa:pen>. It is a straightforward borrowing from a neighboring related language.

Italic regularly has *kW...kW from PIE *p...kW as we see in Lat. <qui:nque> (with long vowel from the ordinal), <quercus>, <coquus>, and <cu:nctus>. Borrowing from Celtic is a straw man. It is silly to posit an optional reverse assimilation to *p...p in order to derive Lat. <prope> from *pro-kWe, which would not agree with the usual sense of *-kWe.

However, I do not share de Vaan's enthusiasm for Dunkel's ad-hoc derivation of <prope> from *pro-pro with dissimilative loss of -r-. I think instead that we are dealing with *pro-pi, a juxtaposition of two (prepositional) adverbs, with *pi being the zero-grade of <poi>, a preposition found in some Greek dialects (e.g. Locrian <poi ton waston> 'to the city'). Furthermore Sanskrit has prefixal <pi-> (e.g. <pinahyati> 'he ties (something) to') which cannot be regarded as zero-grade of <api->.

DGK