From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57746
Date: 2008-04-20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] 'Dug' from PIE? (was: Rg Veda Older than Sanskrit)
> At 1:11:00 PM on Sunday, April 20, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
<snip>
> > I propose that English 'dug' is the inherited reflex of
> > *dheugh-; our good fortune is that it shows the required
> > meaning.
>
> An obvious difficulty is that it first shows up in the 16th
> c. And in the two earliest citations in the OED it refers
> specifically to a woman's breast ('Tete, pappe, or dugge, a
> womans brest' 1530, and 'Her dug with platted gould rybband
> girded about her' 1583), though I shouldn't put too much
> weight on that.
>
> It's also very difficult to concoct a history that works.
> OE *dugV would have yielded something like ME *doue, *dowe,
> so you need a geminate *dugg-, and I don't see where it
> would come from.
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
Would this not be exactly the type of word for which we could reasonably
anticipate expressive gemination?
***