Re: root *pVs- for cat

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 5:14:06 AM on Thursday, July 26, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:52:35 AM on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 4:40:54 PM on Sunday, July 22, 2007, tgpedersen
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>> The decision what was foreign and non-foreign was
> >>>>> mine.
>
> >>>> Failure to point this out, especially when the decision
> >>>> is contentious, is ... sloppy, to put a better face on
> >>>> it than I think is actually justifiable.
>
> >>> Who else should decide it?
>
> >> Where did I say that you shouldn't make the decisions for
> >> yourself? The problem is that you presented your decisions
> >> as if they all went without saying, when in fact several of
> >> them were distinctly questionable -- not necessarily wrong,
> >> but certainly questionable. This is *not* something that I
> >> should have to check your source(s) to discover.
>
> > The fact that you question them does not make them
> > questionable;
>
> I am hardly the only one to have done so. Were that the
> case, I'd be questioning your linguistic judgement instead
> of your intellectual honesty.

Let me see if I understand this: You assume that other people have
questioned my decisions; if that is the case you will question my
honesty, otherwise you will question my judgement? Huh? It is a good
principle that insults should be make sense, as eg.: 'Your failure to
consider new evidence is testimony to your intellectual sloth and
parochial mindset'.

> > in particular because you steadfastly ignore that words in
> > Germanic in p- are not Germanic words and words in Latin
> > with root vowel -a- are (with exceptions) not Latin.
>
> Both are completely irrelevant to any point that I have
> tried to make.

Why is that, and what was your point?

> An Irish borrowing from Latin or English is
> not evidence of Irish (or Insular Celtic) contact with some
> NWBlock language, irrespective of whether the word is native
> to Latin or Germanic, respectively.

Of course. But that was what was under discussion. Once the question
is settled, it's settled. What are you trying to point out by
repeating this truism?

> >>> From your tentative position which is not a position,
> >>> how would you explain the many words in p- in both p-
> >>> and q-Celtic? [...]
>
> >> The DIL has only about 20 pages of <p-> words,
>
> > 'Only' 20 pages, in a language which abolished p-.
>
> Yes, only: that's 20 out of about 2500, a very small
> fraction. And that same language did a lot of borrowing.

I don't get it; are you saying that if that number is small enough, we
can pretend they're not there? A quantité négligeable?

> Here are the headwords on the first page: P; páb(h)áil;
> páb(h)álta; pács; pagáil; págán; págánacht; págánda;
> págánta; págántacht; paidir; paidrín; paigiment; pailiris;
> pailis; paillium; pailliún; pailm; ?pailt; páin; paintél;
> paintér; páipér; paipinseóg(h); páirc.
>
> The article <P> is about the letter.
> <Pács> is a borrowing of Latin <pax>;

That's possible. But if there is another source, that is a possibility
too, given the whole complex of
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/HbHpHg.html
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/49151
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48982
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48817

> <págán> is from Latin <paganus>, and
> <págánacht>, <págánda>, <págánta>, and <págántacht> are
> derivatives;

> <pailis> is from ME <palis> 'a palisade';
> <paillium> is from Latin <pallium>;
> <pailliún> is from French <pavillon>;
> <pailm> is from Latin <palma>;
> <páin> is from Latin <panis>;
> <paintél> is a variant of <paintér>,
> from ME <panter> 'a trap, a snare', from OFr <pantiere>;
> <paipinseóg(h)> is from OFr <papingay>;
> and <páirc> is from Romance (e.g., OFr <parc>.

Unfortunately you don't provide the sense, whether it's like Engl.
'park' or something closer to 'paddock' which is related, in its turn
related to 'pad'; 'parco' is without etymology in Latin

> <Paidir> is a variant of <paiter>, from Latin <pater>, and
> <pailiris> is metathesized
> from <pairilis> 'paralysis, palsy, from Romance.
> <Páipér> is probably directly from English <paper>,
> possibly from OFr or Latin.
> <Páb(h)áil>, its derivative <páb(h)álta>, and <pagáil>
> are probably all formed on English <pave>, and
> <paigiment> on <pavement>.

Probably?
Here are its relatives:
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/07pauw-treten.html

> That leaves only the uncertain
> <pailt> and <paidrín> 'a rosary', which must be derived from
> Latin <pater>.

> >> most of which are readily identifiable as loanwords from
> >> Latin, Romance, or English, or derivatives thereof.
>
> > Some are, other matches are Procrustean.
>
> No. When I wrote 'readily identifiable', I meant exactly
> that: loanwords like <págán> 'a pagan, a heathen', or <páin>
> 'bread'.

Yes, you meant those that are, not those that aren't. At 1 - 5 per
page, that's 20 - 100 words in p- that can't be explained
traditionally, times (approx.) 25 letters will be the number in whole
language. What are you going to do about them? Wait for them to go away?


Torsten