Re: request to Celtic specialists

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > At 3:12:17 PM on Monday, November 28, 2011, dgkilday57
> > wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57"
> > > <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> Since Burrow has no problem with Proto-Indo-European
> > >> */a/, he extends *kan- 'small' back to PIE and derives
> > >> from it Middle Irish <cana>, <cano> 'wolf-cub', Welsh
> > >> <cenau> 'wolf-cub, dog-whelp', Latin <canis> 'dog' (on
> > >> the theory, earlier 'whelp'), the first element of
> > >> Maeonian <Kandaúle:s> 'Dog-Strangler' (epithet of Hermes,
> > >> Hipponax fr. 3 Masson), and Slavic <konI> 'horse' (on the
> > >> theory, earlier 'foal'). The semantics are not difficult,
> > >> with Umbrian <katel> 'dog' against Lat. <catulus> 'young
> > >> animal, whelp' providing an illustration, but for those
> > >> of us who lean toward Lubotsky in avoiding PIE */a/, the
> > >> phonology and morphology pose a challenge. In prevocalic
> > >> zero-grade, PIE *ken- should yield *kn.nV- by
> > >> Sievers-Edgerton, whence *kanV- in In-Ir and Italic. (The
> > >> latter is argued from the P-Italic negative prefix <an->,
> > >> apparently generalized from prevocalic position while
> > >> Q-Italic extracted preconsonantal *en-, Lat. <in->.) I
> > >> will leave the Celtic words aside, since I no longer have
> > >> access to recent etymological material.
> >
> > > According to Schrijver, cited by Lubotsky (Reflexes of
> > > PIE *sk in In-Ir, Incontri Linguistici 24:25-57, fn. 21,
> > > 2001), the Celtic forms (including Middle Welsh <ceneu>
> > > 'puppy') reflect Proto-Celtic *kanawon- < PIE
> > > *kenh{x}won-. If this suffix *-won- functions like
> > > Sanskrit -van- (e.g. <yájvan-> 'worshipping' from <yaj->
> > > 'to worship'), the root can hardly be *kenh1- 'to pinch,
> > > compress' vel sim., since *kénh1won- would have an active
> > > sense 'pinching, pincher'. Then again, perhaps a puppy
> > > was considered a 'little nipper'.
> >
> > Matasović also gives PCelt *kanawon- 'young animal, young
> > dog, whelp'. He derives it from PIE *(s)ken- 'young, new',
> > with cognates Russ. <ščenók> 'young dog, puppy' and Arm.
> > <skund> 'yound dog'. Refs.: LEIA C-32, GPC I: 461, DGVB
> > 101, EIEC 204.
>
> He must be taking *-awon- as the same second element found in PCelt *altr-awon- 'foster uncle', cf. *awon-ti:r- 'uncle', Lat. <avunculus>, etc., PIE *h2ewh2o- 'grandfather', Lat. <avus>. The problem I see here is that his PCelt *a:wyo- 'descendant, grandchild' is a vrddhi-derivative, which the short vowel of *kanawon- excludes, and 'puppy, whelp' is a descendant, not an ancestor.

The problem is that M. has painted himself into a morphological corner by assuming an anit.-root *(s)ken- for PCelt *kanawon-. This forces *-awon- to be a suffix (otherwise unattested) or the second element of a compound, and the only lexical item available is 'uncle'.

I have argued for a set.-root *kenh1- behind Lat. <canis> and the others. In Latin we have passive adjectives in *-wo- such as <caeduus> 'suitable for cutting' (of branches), <arvus> 'ready for plowing' (of fields). That this suffix functioned with /e/-grade roots is shown by <perspicuus> 'clear, evident', which implies *spek-wo- '(easily) seen, visible'. Thus if PIE *kenh1- indeed meant 'pinch, compress' vel sim., *kenh1-wo- could have meant 'easily compressed, easily made small', with a semantic transition to 'small, young of an animal'.

The derivative *kenh1w-on- would stand to *kenh1wo- as *h2ewh2-on- 'uncle' to *h2ewh2o- 'grandfather, ancestor'. The original sense of PCelt *kanawon- would then not simply be 'whelp' but something like 'whelpling', in a devaluative sense 'miserable little whelp', which would explain why MBr <ceneuan> was glossed as 'catulaster' rather than simply as 'catulus'.

DGK