[tied] Re: Ducks and Souls

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 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.

You won't get off that easy. Either all Schijver's examples should be
rewritten with initial *H2-, in which case there is no 'language of
bird names' or the duck is one of them.

>
> >> 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.

>

Thank you, moderator. You are welcome to join.

How come your opponents never have a shred of evidence? The word
exists in the neighbor families, so presumably I must have died out
at some time in Proto-Celtic. Where's your evidence, shredded or not,
that the word disappeared before Halstatt?

> > 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.

I thought I made an off-hand remark. I think you overrate me. Far-
reaching?!

Let me walk you through this piece of logic.
WRT the 'duck' word and Halstatt, there are two possiblities:
1) They knew it
2) They didn't
Assuming 1) is the case, they would be able to pun on it. Assuming 2)
is the case, they wouldn't be.

> Actually, there are some Greek and Roman anatiform artifacts,

including

> fine duck oil lamps.
>

And I have a collection of illustrated stories of an American family
of ducks. But somehow I don't think they should be read symbolically.


Torsten

BTW How did the Romans produce duck oil?