Re: Gemination in Celtic

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

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anders R. Joergensen" <ollga_loudec@...>
>
> 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.
> A
> ============
> It depends until when Celtic kept glottal stop an independant

phoneme.

> It's clear that my proposal that -?-C- > -CC- is a dvlpmnt of Celtic
> I have no idea when it might have happened,
> It may even be post-proto-Celtic.
> Arnaud
> =========

Well, these things may be very difficult to determine, especially as
no convincing examples have been put forward, on which to form an
opinion.

>
> > 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.
> A
> ============
> It shows the sequence v_?_C- > v_C+voice
> does not generate a long vowel in eastern PIE.
> Arnaud
> ===========

Winter's Law is the Balto-Slavic lengthening of short vowels followed
by a voiced, unaspirated stop. There are many very good examples and
a few very good counter-examples, wherefore the current debate mostly
centers on how to restrict the law.

> > Maybe it does not work with -t- ?
> > only with -kk-
>
> I guess this means that "Celtic" *potta is out as an example.
> A.
> =============
> Not necessarily.
> Because there is a certain number of unknowns :
> - Insular Celtic may behave differently as say Gaulish,
> - There are eight H2 and I don't have a possible example for all,
> so that my intuition is that *? and *(t)s? could cause -CC-
> While *&ayin doesn't.

It seems that there's an awful lot of intuition in this. I hope the
evidence for the remaining six alternative h2's is stronger than the
evidence for our present h2 (= ?). I must say that I have yet to see
one convincing example.

Have you entertained the idea that there is no regular correspondence
Italo-Celtic *k(k) = Eastern *g?

>
> I suggested *potta is from *kwoH2-ta
> here I suppose H2 is -z- : k_w_z "to burn, to bake"
> Arnaud
> ==========
> > 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.

> A
> ===========
> What is the proto-form for i:kk- ?
>
> Arnaud

You tell me.

> ============
> 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
> ========
> Not so clear.
> the -sk- suffix can turn *bhreH2-k- into *bhreH1-k-sk-

How?

> Unsuffixed *bre:k- would be clearer.

Indeed it would, but I still think it's a fairly obvious connection.

>
> Isn't there a Letton verb blaz- with a ?

Pokorny lists a Latvian one (with long -a:-). I don't see the
relevance.

>
> I consider this root is *bh_s. with three states :
> unaffixed bh_H2
> infixed bh-l-_H2
> infixed bh-r-_H2
> All meaning to shine, to be bright.

The relevance of this of course depends on your ability to show that
bre:ks^ti has -h2- > -h1- somehow.

Anders