Re: [tied] Re: Ducks and Souls

10-09-03 16:42, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>> No need to posit a borrowed root; the word is widely attested (cf.
>> Lith. ántis and Slavic *o~ty), and all its reflexes derive
>> unproblematically from the forms given above.
>
> Tell Schrijver.

No need either. The etymology works well enough, and I don't see the
'duck' word among Schrijver's examples.

>> The duck/soul pun works in Scandinavian only, since the 'duck' word
>> and the word for 'breath', *an(V)do: (variant of weak masculine
>> *an(V)d-an-) merge as <önd> in Old Norse.

> Actually, besides Old Norse only in Swedish ('and' "wild duck",
> 'anka' "domesticated duck" vs. ande "spirit"); Danish has 'and' vs.
> 'ånd'.

Well, even in Old Norse there was a weak-stemmed variant <andi> beside
<önd> 'breath'; only the latter was homophonous with the 'duck' word.

>> The pun won't work in any known form of Celtic, since the Celtic
>> 'duck' words are _not_ derived from the root in question, or
>
> We are talking about the surviving inscriptions in Halstatt Celtic,
> right? :-)

I said "any _known_ form of Celtic". Of course you can speculate away
about any _unknown_ variety without a shred of evidence. It's your game.

> That might be why you don't find so many ducks on Roman and Greek
> artefacts.

Hey, you haven't proved yet that the Halstatt people were able to pun
about ducks and souls, but you _assume_ they did and you draw
far-reaching conclusions from this factoid of your own invention.
Actually, there are some Greek and Roman anatiform artifacts, including
fine duck oil lamps.

Piotr