--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@>
wrote:
> >
> > > *TK > KK is regular in Latin. Weiss gives as examples
> > >
> > > *ad-gradior 'approach' > aggredior
> > > *ad-causa:- 'charge' > accu:sa:re
> > > *ped-ka:- 'sin' > pecca:re,
> >
> > I'd say that an original noun/adj. formed that verb. If so,
> > *pediko- was the original form, like *sitikos 'thirsty' > siccus
> > 'dry', with (perhaps not regular) middle V>0 between two
consonants.
> > If it was regular, the type of C would have counted.
>
> Ernout-Meillet:
> 'pecco:, -a:s, -a:ui:, -a:tum, -a:re:
> broncher, faire un faux pas, sens encore conservé dans Hor. Ep. I
> 1,8,9,
> solue senescentem mature sanus equum, ne |
> peccet ad extremum ridendus et ilia ducat.
> Employé surtout comme le gr. spállomai, dans le sens moral de
> "commettre une faute ou une erreur, se tromper" (cf. titubo: dans
Pl.
> Mi. 248). -
> Ancien (Enn., Cat.), usuel et familier. Très usité dans la l. de
> l'Église de même que pecca:tum (qui traduit hamartía), pecca:tor; et
> passé par là dans les l. romanes,
> cf. M.L. 6321 pecca:re, 6322 pecca:tor, 6333 pecca:tum et 6334
> pecco:sus.
> Irl. peccad, britt. pechu, pecchod, pechadur.
> Autres dérivés et composés: pecca:men, peccantia, pecca:te:la,
> pecca:tio:, pecca:to:rius, pecca:tri:x, pecca:tus,-u:s (? douteux);
> impecca:bilis; impeccantia (= anamarte:tos, -te:sía), tous tardifs.
> Le sens donne lieu d'imaginer que pecca:re serait dérivé d'un mot
> pecco- qui serait à pe:s ce que mancus est à man- (v. manus). Mais
> pareil mot n'est pas attesté. L'ombrien a pesetom "pecca:tum".'
Umbrian <pesetom>, which occurs four times in the Iguvine Tables, is
generally held to be equivalent to Latin <pecca:tum>, though the
morphological correspondence is not exact. This matter demands
attention in connection with the origin of L. <pecca:re>.
All attestations of <pesetom> appear in a propitiatory formula having
slight variations. The first three examples (VIa:27-29, 37-38, 47-
48) are addressed to Jupiter Grabovius, the last (VIb:29-31) to the
more obscure god Tefer Jovius. Following is the text of the first
example, with the translation of J.W. Poultney, _The Bronze Tables of
Iguvium_ [1959], p. 244.
dei . crabouie . persei . tuer . perscler . uaseto . est .
pesetomest . peretomest / frosetomest . daetomest . tuer . perscler .
uirseto . auirseto . uas . est . di . grabouie . persei . mersei .
esu . bue / peracrei . pihaclu . pihafei
'Jupiter Grabovius, if in thy sacrifice there hath been any omission,
any sin, any transgression, any damage, any delinquency, if in thy
sacrifice there be any seen or unseen fault, Jupiter Grabovius, if it
be right, with this perfect ox as a propitiatory offering may
purification be made.'
In this passage <s> is routinely written for <ç>, denoting the
sibilant resulting from earlier /k/ before a front vowel (note
<uaçetom> VIa:37, and in the older alphabet <vaçetum-i> Ib:8).
Geminates are seldom written as such in the Tables. Von Planta thus
regarded <pesetom> as written for *peççetom, assuming that inherited -
kk- corresponding to L. <pecca:re> was entirely assibilated to -çç-.
The other possibility is that *peçetom never had a geminate, and
comes from a root *pek-. Either way, if we maintain a connection
between <pesetom> and <pecca:tum>, we must abandon hope of derivation
from *ped(i)ka:- 'to stumble', the assumed derivative of *ped-
'foot'. In Umbrian such a derivative, if inherited without syncope,
would have yielded *per^ka:-, with /r^/ represented in the newer
alphabet by <rs> (cf. U. <per^i>, <persi> 'with the foot'). Had
*pedka:- been current when intervocalic -d- shifted to -r^-, it would
also have produced *per^ka:- by analogy with forms like <per^i>, as
we see with the many examples of the prefix <ar^->, <ars-> (L. <ad->)
in preconsonantal position, e.g. <ar^kani> 'musical accompaniment'
(acc. sg. from *ad-kaniom). Finally, if *pedka:- had undergone
devoicing to *petka:-, the dental would have been preserved and
eventually revoiced, as we see with <totcor> nom. pl. 'those of the
city', <todceir> abl. pl., <todcom-e> acc. sg., from *teutiko-,
*toutiko- (Oscan nom. sg. <túvtiks>). None of these alternatives can
yield *peç(ç)etom or <pesetom>.
Another morphological issue is that all seven passive participles in
the formula end in -eto(m). Since <uirseto auirseto> can hardly mean
anything other than 'seen (or) unseen', we must assume that Umbrian
created a regular second-conjugation participle *wir^e:to- from the
verb 'to see' corresponding to L. <vide:re>, rather than retaining
*we:sso- from earlier *weid-to- (L. *vi:ssum, <vi:sum>). In
<peretom> and <daetom> we apparently have participles of prefixed
forms of the verb 'to go', L. <i:re>, with normal-grade -ei- (U. -e:-
) extended to the participle, unlike L. <-itum>. However <uaseto(m)>
and <frosetom> (for *frossetom) appear to be participles of
denominative verbs, based on <uas> 'gap, omission, fault' (from *wak
(o)s, cf. L. <vaca:re> 'to be empty') and *fro:sso- (from *fraud-to-,
cf. early L. <fraussus> 'cheated', L. <fraus>, <fraudis> 'deceit,
fraud'). These verbs should belong to the first conjugation, and the
participles are expected to end in -atum. Von Planta regarded them
as unsyncopated participles corresponding to Latin 1st-cj. forms in -
itum (e.g. <doma:re>, <domitum>), and this is the view preferred by
Poultney, as opposed to Devoto's idea of participles in -e:tum of the
2nd-cj. form used with some 1st-cj. verbs. Apart from the
propitiatory formula, the Tables also have <muieto>, nom. sg. neuter
pass. part. corresponding to the imperative <mugatu> 'make a noise!',
and various cases of <pruseçeto->, <proseçeto->, <proseseto->, pass.
part. corresponding to the impv. <prusek(a)tu> 'cut off!'. Thus U.
<pesetom> is capable of being the participle to a 1st-cj. verb *pek(k)
a:- of likely denominative origin.
W. Meyer-Lübke, _Wiener Studien_ 25:105ff., observed that Spanish has
not only reflexes of L. <pecca:re> etc. with the expected moral
meanings, but also <peca> 'freckle, speck, spot' and
<pecoso> 'freckled'; he also provided a gloss "pecosus graece
leprosus". Thus he argued in effect that <pecca:re> is a
denominative to *pecca 'mark, spot, blemish, macula'. A. Walde, LEW
s.v. <pecco:>, rejected this idea on the grounds that L. <pecca:re>
is intransitive, <macula:re> transitive, and so an original intr.
sense of <pecca:re>, such as 'stumble' from *ped(i)-ka:-, should be
sought. However, Walde's criticism can be easily sidestepped.
Assuming *pecca 'mark, spot, blemish' in pre-classical Latin, we
derive a regular transitive denominative *pecca:re 'to mark, spot,
blemish', and regular deverbative nouns <pecca:tus> 'act of
blemishing; blemish; fault' and <pecca:tum> 'result of blemishing;
blemish; bad mark; sin'. If *pecca and *pecca:re were replaced by
<macula> and <macula:re> in Roman Latin, say around 200 BCE,
surviving only in provincial Hispanic Latin, the derived nouns could
have been reinterpreted in classical Latin as deverbatives to
<pecca:re> 'to commit a fault, go wrong, sin'.
Combining all the evidence from Latin, Umbrian, and Spanish, it seems
best to regard L. <pecca:re> as indirectly based on a noun
*pecca 'mark, spot, blemish' unconnected with *ped- 'foot'. A better
source for this noun is *pek^- 'to set in order; decorate, make
pretty; make pleasant, joyful' which we find in English <fair> (OE
<fæger>, PGmc *fagraz, PIE *pok^rós), Lithuanian <púos^iu>
(*po:k^ejo:) 'I decorate', Middle Irish <a:il> (*po:k^li-
) 'pleasant', etc. Most Italic words in -ko/ka:- use /i/ as a
connecting vowel, but a few have the suffix attached directly to a
consonant, like L. <juvenca> 'heifer', U. acc. sg. <iveka>,
<iuenga> 'id.', and some ethnonyms, U. <Naharkum> 'Narcan',
<Turskum> 'Tuscan'. If it belongs here, *pecca could represent a
*pek^-ka: 'beauty mark; freckle', acquiring a derogatory sense 'bad
mark; blemish; fault' in the specialized language of Italic ritual,
but preserved as Sp. <peca> in practically its original sense.
> There's the *-k-. Note that mancus, like manus, with its /a/ must
be a
> 'mot populaire'. So would then peccatus etc.
>
> Ernout-Meillet on mancus:
> '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 ?'
Walde cites Uhlenbeck, _Altind. Wb._ p. 209, as relating <mancus> to
ai. <mankú-h.> 'schwankend, schwachlich', ahd. <mango:n>, <mengen>,
<mangolo:n> 'entbehren', mhd. <manc> 'Mangel, Gebrechen', usw. I see
no compelling reason to connect L. <manus> and <mancus>
etymologically. Subsequent paretymological association, of course,
is like falling off a log; note in particular the Italian
specialization to 'left-handed'.
> 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).
I see no compelling reason to regard <mancus> and <pecca:re> as
loanwords, even if I disagree with the explanations of these words
which are currently most popular.
Douglas G. Kilday