Re[2]: [tied] Welsh Don's children: etymology

At 7:00:15 PM on Sunday, February 7, 2010, stlatos wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 11:04:23 PM on Tuesday, February 2, 2010, stlatos wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Gwinn"
>>> <sonno3@> wrote:

>> His post is ten years old, and I believe that Chris left
>> Cybalist a while back.

> Not all of João's questions were answered, so I replied. I
> found the old message when searching for something else
> about Celtic gods.

>>>> Gilfathwy or Gilfaethwy. Once again, an uncertain name
>>>> - Gilfaethwy looks like the preferrable form.

[...]

>>> This is definitely 'child/servant of [Math]'.

>> What have you for such a <Gil-> element in British?

> I'm not the one who came up with this, though I agree with
> it. I don't remember where I first saw it, but you could
> probably find something on the Internet about it.

In other words, you've no apparent reason for thinking that
<Gil-> in a Welsh name means 'child/servant of'. I asked
because I've reason to be skeptical; had you had any
evidence, I'd have been happy to consider it, but I'm not
about to go on what may well be a wild goose chase.

>>>> Gofannon comes from *Gobantonos "the divine smith." I
>>>> am unaware at the moment of the PIE root which gives
>>>> Celtic gobant-o "smith."

>> Why *gobant- rather than *goban(n)- or the like?

> There is no reason, which is why I said he was wrong and
> ignored historical evidence.

I know Chris well enough to be quite sure that he had a
reason. On the other hand, I also know that he's far more
knowledgeable now than he was ten year ago, and if by some
good fortune he were occasionally still reading the list, I
was hoping to get his current views. My guess is that he's
following Hamp (*gobnt-n-). At any rate it appears that the
details are still open, which is why I said 'general shape'
later.

[...]

>> Trying to squeeze <Gebrinius> into this soup makes no
>> sense at all, either formally or semantically: he's
>> identified with Mercury

> For his crafts.

I'm not sure that we actually know enough about him to say.

>> His suggestion that Lat. <faber> and PCelt.
>> *gob-ens/ns-(n-) might have a common PIE root is
>> interesting.

> That seems impossible, since the *dHabHros explanation
> works fine,

If you accept all or most of the connections in Pokorny;
Blažek agrees with Schrijver in rejecting all but Arm.
<darbin>, for which he offers another possible etymology.

> only *gWH > f- in L and there is no evidence for gw- in
> 'smith', etc.

There's nothing against *gWH- here, so far as I know.

Brian