Re: Gemination in Celtic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anders R. Joergensen" <ollga_loudec@...>
> > >
> > > Osl has menogu "viel" which works
> > > Germanic looks like a LW in that case.
> > > Arnaud

> >I guess you mean mUnogU? It may have both older *-g- and *-gH- (of
> >which the latter is slightly less complicated, as there is no
> >Winter's lengthening).
> >ARJ
> ==============
> No, it proves nothing.
> Kobyla is short too. (< ka?pu?l-)

I don't think I said it proved anything. However, countering with a
word which most authorities (if not all) consider post-PIE doesn't
really seal the deal in my opinion. And the evidence for your -?p- in
kobyla etc. is restricted to late Celtic forms which cannot possibly
be inherited. But we've been over that already.

> LAtin iuba "mane" which I consider a LW from Eastern PIE
> based on *dzo?p- "tuft of hair" is short too.
> Eastern buz "bock" is short too.

What's the relevance? I talked about Winter's Law.

> >So not really convincing. OIr. menicc, W mynych must reflect PCelt.
> >*menekki-. The -kk- is usually explained as "expressive" (or

whatever

> >word one would use) which seems OK in a word of such meaning.
> >ARJ
> =======
> I precisely think expressivity should be replaced by phonology here.
> Arnaud

Well, I guess I'll have to disagree with that.

> > > > [Arnaud:]
> > > > creicc "buy" < kwriH2-k-
> > > > Greek pri-a-o (a = H2)

> > > Another derivative of this root is OIr. críth < PCelt.
> > > *kWri:tu-.
> > > ARJ.

> > > =======
> > > Does it mean you consider this example acceptable ?
> > > Arnaud
> > > ==========

> >No. What would happen with *-?t- in Celtic? OIr. -th- is from

single

> >PCelt. *-t-, not geminate.
> >ARJ
> ========
> Maybe it does not work with -t- ?
> only with -kk-

I guess this means that "Celtic" *potta is out as an example.

>
> How do you reconstruct proto-Celtic for creicc ?

I don't. On second thought, it probably _is_ formed on ícc 'act of
paying for, compensation, atonement', as suggested by Thurneysen, GOI.

> ===========
> > > briccus "speckled" is better compared with *bhreH2-k-
> > > than with Lituanian marga.
> > > Is this Pokorny's (p. 139) *bher&g^-, *bhre:g^- 'glänzen,

weiS'? Or

> > are you thinking of another root? What Eastern words are you

hinting at?

> > Anders
> > =============
> >But this root is usually reconstructed with -h1-. I though your law
> >only worked with one of your two h2's.
> > Anders
> ===========
> I consider it does not work with H1,
> only when H2 precisely is glottalized (? or maybe also s.)
>
> As regards Bereza for example < *bhrH1-g-
> Can we contrast H1 and H2 in that position in Balto-Slavic ?
>
> Arnaud
> =========

No, but Lith. bre:ks^ti etc. seems like a good indication of -h1.

Anders