Re: [tied] OE *docga 'Fido'?

From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 16406
Date: 2002-10-18

In the case of HOG there's a clear relation to Welsh hwch < *huccos < *Celtic *succos.
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] OE *docga 'Fido'?

Similarly, we have Eng. frog < OE frocga (beside forsc, frox < *frosc < *frux-ska-z) as well as stag < OE stacga, of which the latter at least is not unclean. The pattern is characteristic of hypocoristic derivatives including abbreviated forms of proper names (Offa, Otto, Sicco, etc.). <frocga> is surely the diminutive of <frox>, but since there seems to be no obvious prototype for *docga (which appears only once in an 11th-c. gloss as docgena 'canum'), we should consider the possibility that it originated as a conventional name for a dog in OE, and may have no proper etymology. <pig> is not attested before the 13th century, nor is <hog> before the 14th, and they aren't even common Germanic.
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Let dogs and pigs have their way too

ODEngEtym: pig
...ME pigge < OE *picga, *pigga, of similar formation to *docga "dog" ... connexion with synon LG, early Du. bigge, big, MDu vigghe, cannot be made out...

So both unclean SE Asian animals have a sonder-English name,
similarly derived, for whatever reason. Substrate? But what?