Re: Gemination in Celtic

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

>
> >Well, these things may be very difficult to determine, especially

as

> >no convincing examples have been put forward, on which to form an
> >opinion.
> >Anders
> =======
> Well, any time I give an example where -k(k)- alternates with -g-,

But you haven't really given a lot of those instances. *bukko- may
have been borrowed from Germanic, *menekki- may have "expressive"
gemination (cf. tutto vs. todo). Were there others with seeming
Celtic -kk- vs. "Eastern" -g-?

> it's either unclear or not attested here and there, or unconvincing.

You can expect me to object when you give Picard [maké] 'to eat' as
from Celtic. Exactly what dictionaries do _not_ derive this from Lat.
mastica:re?

> Subtratic French is not Celtic, etc.

No, words without established etymologies in French are not
necessarily Celtic. They may be, but in the absence of any actual
Celtic reflexes, it doesn't have much value in trying to establish a
controversial sound change.

Indicentally, we know a fair number of Gaulish names for ceramic
pots, vases and stuff like that. *pottus (or *pottos) is not among
them.

> Discussing with you is an interesting experiment,
> as you generally offer cryptically short answers and all kinds of

dodgings.

> Arnaud

If that isn't an instance of the *pottus calling the cati:nus (or
rather catillus) black, I don't know what is.

> I keep thinking that
> *bhel-H2-k "beam"
> Gaulish *bala:kon
> SKrt bhur-i-jau < -H-g-
> Greek phalan-g-s
> Latin ful-c-io
> is clear
>
> So far you have never a single comment on this.

This is getting ridiculous. For the fourth(!) time I can offer the
following comment (cf. message #56594, #56712, #56722): single
Gaulish -k- (and the -g- in the W balog you included in the first
post) DOES NOT reflect a geminate -kk-.

Furthermore, according to REW the Gaul. form *bala:kon is inferred
from Modern French/Occitan dialectal forms in final -et, i.e., it has
suffix substitution. Only the semantically weak comparison to the W
word in -og allows a Gaulish reconstruction *bala:kon (or do you have
additional information regarding this irrelevant non-example?)

>
> Quite obviously, if you don't look at the possible examples,
> It's little wonder you cannot see a convincing example.
> Why don't you try to look at this one ?

I have done that four times now. Since you obviously don't read my
posts, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

>
> Arnaud
> ===========
> >You tell me.
>
> It's from kwreyH2-k > creicc-
> I suppose this obvious example is not convincing, as usual.
>
> If you think it has to be cut otherwise,
> why don't you explain your point ?
> instead of answering with riddles.
> Arnaud

OIr. ícc is securely established for Celtic (W iach etc.), unlike
creicc. You need some "Eastern" formations in -g- to prove you point,
by the way.

Anders