Re: Happy New Year!

On 2010-01-03 10:50, polymodalsynesthete wrote:

> Hello and happy new year to you as well Piotr!
>
> Sorry for being off-topic, but I was wondering if you received my e-mail
> (regarding "dog" and such)? Wanted to check that it didn't get lost in
> cyberspace.

Hi, Lisa!

I remember sending you a PDF of my article. Then, in August, I replied
to your e-mail, but for some reason my reply kept bouncing off your
server. Let me paste it here in case it didn't get through:

On 2009-08-14 06:21, LJE wrote:

> I have a few questions if you have the time and inclination:

Hi, Lisa! You're most welcome.

> - Would *docga have been pronounced /dOgga/, /dOg:a/, or /dOga/?
Basically wondering if the g was rearticulated (/gg/), just held out
longer (g:), or was a simple /g/.

Phonemically, it was a geminate, /gg/, distinct from /g/ (which, by the
way, would have had a fricative realisation, [G] between vowels.
Phonetically, geminated stops are often distinguished from simple ones
just by having a prolonged occlusive phase, but one can't know with
absolute certainty if that was the case in OE.

> - Also, the first vowel was /O/, right, and not /o:/? (And I assume
the same is true for dox?)

A short vowel in all these words.

> - OE dox < OE or AS dohx < AS *dosc < PGmc *duskaz < IE *dhuskos ?

Yes, something of the kind.

> - What would the IE definition of *dhuskos (or whatever the correct
reconstruction is) be?

Pokorny's dictionary connects it with *dHwes- 'blow', hence *dHus-ko-
'something blown, dust' --> 'dust-coloured'. Obviously, Lat. fuscus is a
cognate.

> - Speaking of, any ideas on Spanish perro? Always wondered about
that one too.

Who hasn't? :) I've no idea. Romance etymology is a vast field with lots
of problems of its own, especially in an area like the Iberian
Peninsula, with lots of barely known substrate languages in historical
times.

Best wishes,

Piotr