Re: Foug- "buy"

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

> > >
> > > So is Venetic Boug/Foug-ont- etc "merchant"?
> >
> > I doubt it. Foug-ont- and related forms are much too widespread

in

> > Venetic onomastics to be derived from a relatively recent
> > occupational designation.
>
> Relatively recent? What do you mean?

The occupation of merchant in classical times was relatively recent.
Some of the Greeks thought that the Lydians had invented it.

> > More likely Foug-ont- is a participial form meaning 'Joyous' or
> > 'Bringing Joy' or whatever, more or less along the lines of

Slavic

> > Radovan.
>
> Which verb would that be a participle of?

PIE *bheug-, whence Latin <fungor>, Sanskrit <bhunk.te>, Armenian
<bucanem>, etc., cited by Benveniste in the material you quoted, with
the primary sense 'to enjoy'.

On the other hand Gothic <bugjan>, Avestan <baog->, <baoxtar>, etc.,
require a different root *bheugh- 'to undo, untie' vel sim., leading
in B.'s view to 'to ransom, buy' in Germanic.

> > Venetic F- and B- do not alternate.
>
> Pellegrini/Prodoscimi apparently disagree.

The closest I can find to a disagreement in your material is the hint
at Istria as a boundary between F- and B-. This is hardly equivalent
to claiming VENETIC B- from PIE *bh-.

> > I regard Bukka as a masculine
> > hypocoristic (since Ven. fem. hyp.'s regularly have -o) derived
> > from Illyrian substrate, meaning 'Cheeky'. I have argued before
> > that the river-name Plavis came from Ill., since it has /a/ from
> > */o/ whereas Ven. itself preserves /o/. I do not believe that

PIE

> > *bheu- 'to swell' etc. had a by-form *beu-,
>
> Neither do I. Why do you say that?

Pokorny and Watkins do admit one, and quite recently Wallace cited
Bukka as an example of Venetic B- continuing PIE *b-. I seldom
disagree with Wallace, but I do here.

> > and assignment to Illyro-Japygian substrate explains both Bukka

and

> > Latin <bucca> (as well as Bucco, a hyp. cited by Varro) without
> > recourse to PIE by-forms.
>
> Pellegrini/Prodoscimi (check the quote) assign the boug-/bug- forms

to

> 'Illyrian', according to them Untermann sees the Bukka etc forms as
> hypochoristic forms of Buktor.

Apparently Buktor is only attested from Noricum, where the immediate
substrate was of Illyrian type, not Venetic. To me it makes more
sense that Bukka in Venetia was a freedman's name, originating with
the pre-Venetic underclass, which according to my view had spoken an
Illyrian language.

DGK