Re: Foug- "buy"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> --- 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.

Call it trader then. That amber had to get along the trail somehow.

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

I note that you provide no reason for your preference.

> > 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.

It's more economical to see it as having just one sense, ie. "to free
(oneself) of a hindrance/encumbrance", leading to the Gothic/English
sense.

> > > 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-.

A fine point, considering where tradition places the border between
Venetic and Illyrian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language

> > > 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.

You'd sort of have to, if you want to keep a hard and fast language
order in Istria. And for that, you are willing to accept "the swollen
one" as a nickname?

> > > 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.

But *-tor is a nomen agentis suffix.


Torsten