Re: [tied] barba, farfeche, bãiat

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14578
Date: 2002-08-27

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:04:04 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:

>Regarding the word barba, let us have an explanation:
>Ernout-Meillet -Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine,
>Paris, 1959, page 66 supposes that initialy there must have
>been an italic "farfa" which became in latin "farba" and after
>this became "barba".
>If my source of information agrees with the first part, with
>the second part "farba" changes to "barba" has some troubles.
>There is no need in latin from iteslf to change from farba to
>barba so there it must be an influence from somewhere else .

The change farba > barba in Latin (phonologically perhaps /ParBa/ > /BarBa/,
with bilabial fricatives /P/ and /B/) is a simple case of spontaneous
assimilation. You don't need outside influences for that.

>If we will have to look at the today gallic where for barba
>they use "barfau" which has to come froma "barba"

Indeed it does: Welsh barf- ( = /barv-/) is from Latin barba (V.Lat. /barva/).

>because PIE
>dh could not chenge directly to f but trough an intermediate
>proto-celtic form which must be "barba", the change of "d" (
>from PIE dh in gallic) in "b" must have took change for
>avoiding the omonimy with the word *barde ( ax for fighting)
>which was in use in the old french until the XV century.

The fighting axe is the same word as the beard (from Germanic), "weil das Eisen
wie ein Bart am Stiele steht" (Gmc. > Slav. brady "axe").

About PIE *bhardhah2 in general: why the /a/ in the first syllable? There
doesn't seem to be a good explanation. The only thing I can think of, in view
of Latvian ba:r(z)da is that the etymon is actually *bhr.s-dháh2, and that the
/ar/ (/a:r/) somehow represents the lengthened grade of /r./ before
syllable-final /s/ (by "Szemerényi lengthening").

>Outgoing puint: farfechie
>Miguell & Piotr did not say they do not belive , but they
>could not find this word . Let us see:
>In the Grand Dizionario della Lingua Italiana of Salvatore
>Bataglia ( in 20 volums) published begining with 1961, in the
>5-th volume pag 685 we will see:
>farfechia ( ant. ) - baffo ( moustache)


>outgoing point: rom. bãiat, bãrbat,bãtrân
> if for Miguell souns OK that bãiat could be from imbalneatus,
>there is in no romance this word , but we cann agree, maybe
>the ancient romaninas have had much phantesie. Of course we
>can agree something else. For instance the english "boy" is
>the samy dacian form of bãiat if we things about some dacian
>cohortes which are to find in British insels at that time. I
>do not have an etymologycal dictionarie of english, so I will
>like to beg someone to take a look at english "boy" which
>looks very like to rom. "bãi" and with "bãiat" for seeing what
>an ethymology is there. I know it sounds crazy but it doesnt
>cost too much to take a look. Maybe is a celtic form or so
>which gives another dimension of all stuff

NE., ME. <boy>, "akin to Fris. <boi> "boy" and prob. to OE Bo:ia, Bo:fa
(masculine proper names), OHG Buobo (masculine proper name), MHG buobe "boy" [>
NHG Bube]; all perhpas from prehistoric WGmc. words derived by baby talk from
the WGmc. word corresponding to OE bro:thor "brother"". [Cf. also Bubba].

>supposed to be very clear to every romanist from lat.
>I am still not happy with this one but how I said, I dont have
>a very good explanation. The only point where I am is this:
>bãtrân is to find in:
>vegliot=vetrun, old venetian=vetrano, old sardic=betran,
>albanian vjetruar.Veteranus comes from vetus in latin and all
>come from an PIE *uet- "an". It is excluded the albanian have
>their word from latin because they have vit ( pl. vijet)

That Albanian has retained the PIE word *wet(es)- "year" is true, but it doesn't
mean that vjetruar (< *wetra:nV) can't be from Latin. In fact it *must* be,
because Albanian native words do not have the development /s/ > /r/ typical of
Latin (*wetesa:nos > vetera:nus).

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal