From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 49412
Date: 2007-07-23
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"[snipped]
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 10:18:08 AM on Friday, July 20, 2007, tgpedersen
>> wrote:
>>>>> You seem to have left out a number of non-foreign
>>>>> pairs of items in p-/b- in McBain:
>> [...]
>>>>> babag "tassle" / pab "shag, refuse of flax"
>>>> It's distinctly disingenuous to call this non-foreign
>>>> when you've read the <pab> entry in McBain. <Babag> is a
>>>> diminutive of <bab>, which may be from ME; <pab> is from
>>>> EIr <pop(p)> 'a shoot, a tendril (of a plant), also
>>>> <pap>, which may be from Latin.
>>> This is McBain's pab-entry:
>> Precisely: McBain explicitly notes the possibility of ME,Failure to point this out, especially when the decision is
>> MScots, or Latin origin. (My comment on EIr <pop(p)> is
>> based on the DIL.) Therefore it is at least disingenuous
>> (and I would say downright dishonest) to offer <babag> and
>> <pab> without qualification as 'non-foreign' items when
>> citing only McBain.
> The decision what was foreign and non-foreign was mine.
>>> Let's first reiterate our positions:No. I have *not* taken such a position. I have tentatively
>>> I think the Celtic p-/b-words are borrowed from some
>>> substrate language. You think they, if borrowed, are
>>> borrowed from a classical language (loans in p- from
>>> English can only be indirect, since they are foreign in
>>> Germanic too).
>> I've not taken a position;
> You follow standard procedure by not considering a local,
> non-Germanic source for Celtic words in p-; that's a
> position.