[tied] Re: Cattle Trouble

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >> DEX 1998 gives for "bour" the Latin word "bubalus",
> >
> > Books contain misprints, and in some handwriting styles "a"

and "u"

> > can be confused. With stress on the first syllable, <bubalus>

does

> > not look like a native Latin word - it would naturally have been
> > slurred to <bubulus> or *<bubilus>. Both Latin dictionaries
> > (Perseus at one extreme; a Collins Pocket dictionary at the

other)

> > that I have consulted have <bubulus>; neither has <bubalus>.

And,

> > as Alex pointed out, *bubalus > _bour_ needs a lot of explaining.
>
> The definition is not only in DEX but is accepted in all linguistic
> discutions as being the word "bubalus". It doesnt matter it is not

a

> native Latin word. If the word entered somehow in Latin and it is

to

> find somewhere in Latin texts, then this is considered as being

Latin

> word and entered Rom. Lang just trough Latin Lang. That is the

view.

I'm baffled. Yesterday, I found nothing looking up 'bubalus' at
Perseus. Today, looking up 'bubal', I found _bubalinus_ with a
mention of _bubalus_ but no dictionary entry. I then looked
up 'bubalum' and was told it was an inflected form; I selected
possible headwords, and found _bubalus_! (The meaning given
is 'antelope, wild ox' and the word is from Greek.) If I look
up 'bubalus', I get an error message - 'No such file XML///.xml.'.
I've submitted a fault report to Perseus.

However, I can't help wondering now if _bu:balus_ and _bu:bulus_ did
merge. _bu:balus_ should have given *buãr.

> >> for "bou" the Latin word "bovus"
> >
> > A doubtful word - I leave it to others to judge how plausible it

is

> > as a Proto-Romance regularisation of <bos>. As a Romanian
> > development it is plausible.

I've still found nothing trustworthy for *bovus. There is a text
saying it is only used in the singular, without indicating its
meaning. Cato used a genitive plural _boverum_ of _bo:s_ - as
though there were a doublet _bovus_, _bover_-. (This is reminsicent
of the multiple forms _pecus_, _pecor_-; _pecus_, _pecud_-; and
_pecu:_, with different but related and overlapping meanings.)

> >>> Eye trouble here - the Latin is _agnella_ (is it attested?),
> >>> feminine of _agnellus_.
> >>
> >> DEX gives here "agnelia", not "agnella"
> >
> > Does anyone believe this was intended? Wouldn't it rather

result in

> > something like *miaie? It could be anything from a typographical
> > error to a fault in the printing.
>
> Here the same thing. There is no typographical error or fault in

the

> printing.This is the accepted definition.

The closest I can find is Gerge's citation of <agnelliola>. I still
don't believe "agnelia".

>
> >
> >>> Didn't we discuss the derivation of miel
> >>> from _agnellus_ once? (I can't find the discussion.) If

_miel_

> >>> derives from _agnellus_, _mia_ derives from _agnella_. (For
> >>> details, try using gnellus and gnella as inputs in my 'toy'.)
> >>>
> >>> Richard.
> >>
> >> We discussed it. The observation has been as follow:
> >
> > Thanks, but I'd have preferred a message number.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> It seems as soon as the year change the archive is searched just

within

> the actual year. At least I couldnt find the discution about

agnis/ognis

> where -so far I remember- was discussed about the gn > mn

in "amnar" and

> there we discussed about "miel" too.

The search engine was kind to me tonight. The roots of the
discussion of _agenllus_ > _miel_ are:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/24720
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/24721
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/24724

I don't understand your comments about the <ñ> of _ñel_. Are you
saying it is a palatalised /n/ ([n']) rather than the palatal nasal
[J] (using the ugly SAMPA notation)? I agree the resemblance to
the -gn- of French _agneau_ is partly coincidental - I think it's
the merger of the combination of -gn- > -mn- and -éllu > -iel. I
don't think the loss of the inital vowel was explained.

(I don't think I ever did establish beyond reasonable doubt that -
agn- and -amn- would not have merged.)

Richard.