From: tgpedersen
Message: 57764
Date: 2008-04-21
>I also had toponyms and appellatives in P- and roots of the TVT- type,
> At 3:31:30 PM on Sunday, April 20, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 1:11:00 PM on Sunday, April 20, 2008, Patrick Ryan
> >> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > Well, one could always propose a substrate language
> > containing words with geminates? [...]
>
> OE had all sorts of geminates.
> This particular one,That would be most uncomely. There must be other ways of finding
> however, is a problem. And do note that I'm specifically
> addressing Patrick's proposal, *not* casting about in search
> of an etymology.
> (Yours is a non-solution to the moreNo, as far as I'm concerned, Schrijver's 'language of geminates' is
> general problem anyway: at this point, at least, it's just a
> fancy way of saying 'We don't know where this came from'.)