Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Anders R. Joergensen"
<ollga_loudec@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
> >
> > At 6:00:34 PM on Saturday, June 14, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > It wouldn't
> > surprise me if the Breton verb were denominal within Breton.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> I haven't been following this, or any thread, for some time, having
> restricted internet access and time where I'm presently at. So I
> may misunderstand the discussion.

You haven't, at least not in this posting.

> However, I don't see any reason why the Brit. verbal stem *pex-
> should no have been borrowed directly from Latin.
>
> A nice little Latin derivational system was borrowed by British
> Celtic, namely *pex- 'to sin' (pecca:re), *pexOd 'a sin'
> (pecca:tu-), *pexOdr, *pexadyr a sinner' (pecca:tor,
> pecca(:)to:rem). While the reflexes of the agent noun suffix *-Odr,
> *-adyr became somewhat productive in W, this did not happen in
> SWBrit., which is why a back-formation (noun -> verb) seems
> unlikely.

Erh, you see no reason why it shouldn't have happened, and it
happened? I'm confused. Was the verb stem borrowed as such or not? Do
you have other examples of Latin verb stems being borrowed by Insular
Celtic?

Gol/a,b has
Lat. pa:sto:r // OCS pastyrI "shepherd"
*rod-tro- (Latin rostrum) // PSlav. rydlo "beak"
Apparently Slavic loans these words from a language similar to Latin,
but with /o:/ > /u:/. It would seem the Welsh /y/ in the agens suffix
-adyr came that way too?


And BTW, I came across this from Cnut's law on forests:
1 'Sint tam deinceps quatuor ex liberalioribus hominibus, qui habent
saluas suas debitas consuetudines (quos Angli Pegened appellant) in
qualibet regni mei prouincia constituti, ad iustitiam distribuendam,
una cum poena merita & materiis forrestae cuncto populo meo, tam
Anglis quam Danis per totum regnum meum Angliae, quos quatuor
primarios forestae appellandos censemus'

and

2 'Sint sub quolibet horum quatuor ex mediocribus hominibus (quos
Angli les pegend nuncupant, Dani vero yoong men vocant) locati, qui
curam et onus tum viridis tum veneris suscipiant.'

Pegened has been emended in the 19th cent. to Þegenas, and les pegend
to læs-þegnas. I could understand the [p] for [þ], since my OCR does
the same all the time, unless I tell it that character actually
exists, but why a plural -d? Neither Latin, OE nor ON has it; but cf
those ethnonyms in *-etV´, in Germanic version in *-eðV´ > *´-eðV, of
which Veneti/Wend is an example.

If the P- is original, is this a native 'English-Wendish' institution
to deal people who did too much *pek- ?


Torsten