From: tgpedersen
Message: 25755
Date: 2003-09-11
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowskithe
> <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
> > 'duck' word among Schrijver's examples.be
>
> You won't get off that easy. Either all Schijver's examples should
> rewritten with initial *H2-, in which case there is no 'language ofCeltic
> bird names' or the duck is one of them.
>
> > >> The pun won't work in any known form of Celtic, since the
> > >> 'duck' words are _not_ derived from the root in question, orMcBain's Dictionary:
> > >
> > > We are talking about the surviving inscriptions in Halstatt
> Celtic,
> > > right? :-)
> >
>