From: tgpedersen
Message: 59035
Date: 2008-06-04
> Ernout-Meillet on mancus:To more to make this mess even more intractable (from the traditional
> 'mancus, -a, -um: manchot, infirme de la main;
> cf. Dig.21,1,2, sciendum scaeuam non esse morbosum, praeterquam si
> imbecillitate dextrae ualidius sinistra utatur; sed hunc non
> scaeuam, sed mancum esse dicimus.
> Puis plus généralement "mutilé, estropié". - Attesté depuis Pl.
> Demeuré dans les l. romanes sous forme d'adj., et dans le verbe
> dérivé du type "manquer", M.L.5285;
> germ.: m.néerl. mank, ags. bemancian.
> Le bret. manc "manchot" peut être emprunté au français.
> e:manco:, -a:s: rendre manchot (Labien, ap. Sen. Contr.5, 33 fin);
> mancaster(Gl.), manca:tus (Lex.Sal. ).
> De *man + ko-s, avec un suffixe caractéristique des tares
> [deficiencies] physiques; cf.pecca:re ?'
>
> The French verb would have been *manca:re in Latin, corresponding to
> pecca:re. So we have *man-k- in MDutch, Breton, OE and 'Popular
> Latin', with that pesky /a/ everywhere. My guess: loan from Venetic:
> and so would consequently *pek-k- < *ped-k- be, just as these
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-betr_gen.html
>
> with the exception, of course, of the Germanic forms in f- (which
> would be pre-Grimm loans).