From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 56202
Date: 2008-03-29
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian M. Scott
To: fournet.arnaud
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 6:58 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Gemination in Celtic
At 9:37:03 AM on Saturday, March 29, 2008, fournet.arnaud
wrote:
> From: Brian M. Scott
>> At 3:00:24 AM on Saturday, March 29, 2008, fournet.arnaud
>> wrote:
>>> From: Anders R. Joergensen
>>>>> pott- "pottery" < *kwoH2-t-eH2
>>>>> k_w_H2 as in Greek kaFiô "to burn"
>>>> What Celtic words are you referring to?
>>> French pot for example.
>> Not a good choice.
> Why is not a good choice ?
For a reason that should be obvious from the two passages
that I quoted, one of which I even left in French for you:
it does not appear to be a Celtic word in the first place.
Brian
==========
With all due respect to Dauzat and You,
I don't think the statement by Dauzat
that *pott is supposedly preceltic
amounts to anything but thin air.
Dauzat also considered
*onna < *udna to be pre-celtic
(in his thinking = non PIE).
Plus gar, gal etc "stone"
Dauzat and his pre-celtic
is about the same as
the dear comrade Torsten and
his (numerous) substrates.
Find something better
to prove your point
please.
Arnaud
=============