Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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.'
>
> BTW Buck calls 'tuer perscler' a genitive, can that be true?

Yes. This appears to be a partitive genitive, whose scope in Umbrian
was considerably extended. Buck (p. 195 in the 1928 edition) calls
two other examples "bolder than anything in Latin":

iuenga . peracrio . tursituto
'They shall chase heifers, out of those in perfect condition.' Latin
would say "juvencas ex opimis fuganto", not *"juvencas opimarum
fuganto".

struhçlas . fiklas . sufafias . kumaltu
'He shall grind (a portion of) the twisted(?) cake, the kneaded(?)
cake, and the projecting part (of the victim?).' Latin would never
omit the acc. sg. 'part' or 'portion' in such an expression, but it
has a parallel in the French and Italian usage of <de> or <di> with
indefinite objects.

> > 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.
>
> Ernout-Meillet's '6334 pecco:sus' seems to indicate you're right.
> -o:sus is denominative, AFAIK.

Yes. The 6334 refers to Meyer-Lübke's REW.

> > > There's the *-k-. Note that mancus, like manus, with its /a/

must

> > > be a 'mot populaire'. So would then peccatus etc.

I don't know how seriously this "mot populaire" business can be taken
as a grab-bag for words with /a/-vocalism. Are we to suppose that
the PIE upper crust spoke a refined literary standard, carefully
minding their /e/'s and /o/'s, while the ham-tongued huddled masses
could only grunt out /a/'s?

> > > 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.
>
> For semantic reasons, I suspect the whole mess of *bak- "staff",

*pek-

> "mark", *pak- "pole, construct, area", *mak- "spot, blemish" to be
> ultimately related (*p- > *b- > *m- happened in Basque). The fact

that

> the suffix of *peþ-k- or *pex-k- (or from *paþ-k-/pax-k-, > Venetic

(?)

> *paik- "deceive" in the Kuhn quote?) is of the form *-k-, not *-Vk-
> sets them apart, which speaks for loan status (I suspect stops in

PIE

> were spirantized before other stops, cf Sabellan, Iranian and
> Germanic; Germanic generalized it).

I don't see how one original root could appear three or four
different ways, unless we are dealing with musical
instruments, 'guitar', 'mandolin', and the like, with names getting
borrowed back and forth all over the place. Here we are dealing with
common words for common notions, not exotic instruments.

Sanskrit and Gaulish both seem to have added the *-ko- suffix
directly to stems; in Latin -ico- has been generalized, but the -i-
originally belonged to /i/-stems. If PIE had no double stops, you
need some mechanism to create all the examples in Latin and Greek. I
prefer to think (very provisionally) that NWB produced geminates by
regressive assimilation of inherited double stops. That could
explain *pitt- 'fruit pit' from *(s)pikto- 'pecked away'(?), cf. G.
<Specht> 'woodpecker', and a few others, perhaps even your Chatti as
*kagh-to:s 'those joined together, federated', cf. L. <cohum> 'strap
joining yoke to harness', Gaul. <caio> 'rampart, retaining wall'.
But of course all NWB etymologies are highly speculative, rainy-day
stuff.

Another possibility is that Italic *pekka: was originally a
hypocoristic, 'dear little spot', formed regularly on a longer
derivative of *pek^-, and there was no pre-Italic *pek^-ka:.

> Note BTW in
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-

betr_gen.html

> Irish 'Peacach, -aighe, a., sinful ; sm., a sinner' and
> Breton 'Péc'hi, v. n. Pécher, transgresser la loi divine.'
>
> One might argue that the
> Irish 'Peacadh, g. -aidh and -ctha, pl. id., -aidhe and -aí, m.,
> a sin, a transgression, loosely anything deplorable' and the
> Breton '*Péc'hed, s. m. Péché, faute contre Dieu.'
> are loans from Latin pecca:tus. But what of the other forms?
> Did the Irish and Breton extract a verb stem from the Latin ppp?

I don't know. It might be in the "other" Pedersen.

DGK