From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 70203
Date: 2012-10-16
> Gaulish *Biddos (*<Biddus>, maybe directly attested by Bingen<biddu[>).
>
> French <bidet> 'small horse, pony, nag' (attested since 1564); 'basin for
> washing private parts' (since 1739); 'trestle' is of obscure origin. It
> appears to be connected with Old French <bider> 'to trot' (15th century) and
> <rabider> 'to run toward quickly' (14th c.). Italian <bidetto> 'small
> horse' (since 1598) is evidently borrowed from French, not the other way
> round. Savoyard <bidet> means 'donkey'.
>
> Diez hypothesized a Celtic root *bid- 'small' attested nowhere else.
> Gamillscheg suggested a phonologically unjustified connection with the root
> of Piemontese <bodero> 'thick' and related words, an obscure group in itself
> (Meyer-Lübke, REW 1085, 1182a). Bolelli regarded the verb <bider> as
> primary, and noting its isolation in the FEW, ascribed it to onomatopoeia,
> but without citing any allegedly onomatopoeic formations in *b-d- elsewhere
> to support this (L'Italia Dialettale 17:155-6, 1941).
>
> Trying to do better, we look first at French <vider> 'to empty, leave,
> vacate' as a phonological parallel, along with the corresponding adjective
> <vide> 'empty, void, vacant'. The former continues OFr <voidier> ca. 1160,
> <vuidier> 1313; the latter <voide> ca. 1100, <vuide> (fem.) ca. 1261,
> <vuit>, <vit> (masc.) ca. 1200. Early etymologists attempted to derive
> these from Latin <vidua:re> 'to deprive of', <viduus> 'deprived, bereft,
> widowed', but this requires ad-hoc assumptions. The acceptable solution was
> given almost simultaneously by Schuchardt (Romania 4:256-7, 1875) and
> Thomsen (ib. 257-62). These words are to be referred to Low Latin
> *vocita:re 'to empty' and *vocitus 'empty'.
>
> In this position it appears that Latin [k] first underwent affrication to
> [c^], then voicing to [j^] (falling together with the reflex of Lat. [g]),
> then lenition to the semivowel [j], resulting in *-oji- which was reduced to
> the diphthong *-oi- in Continental West Romance (e.g. Old Italian <voito>
> 'empty, void', later <voto>, <vuoto>; <voitare> 'to void'). It is
> noteworthy that Lat. <co:gita:re> 'to think' has yielded OFr <cuidier>, OIt
> <coitare>, later <cotare>, Old Spanish <coidar>, later <cuidar>. Not only
> has the k/g voicing distinction been neutralized in this environment, but
> also the o/o: length distinction.
>
> It must also be remarked that OFr <cuit> 'cooked' (continuing Lat. <coctum>)
> retains the diphthong today, but <vuit> and <vuide> became <vit> and <vide>
> (at different times in various dialects). This is to be explained by the
> dissimilative effect of the preceding labial. It might be objected that OFr
> <puiser> 'to draw liquid' (since ca. 1160) has not been similarly
> monophthongized by the labial. This verb cannot be separated from its
> primary noun <puits> 'well' (<puz> ca. 1120, <puiz> ca. 1165, continuing
> Lat. <puteum>), whose vocalism has been influenced by Germanic words for
> 'pit'. Frankish *putti can be restored on the basis of Old High German
> <pfuzzi> (cf. Old English <pytt>).
>
> This suggests that OFr <bider> may have arisen by labial dissimilation from
> *buidier, earlier *boidier, continuing a Low Latin *bocita:re (*bog-,
> *bo:c-, *bo:g-). No source for any of the four possible roots immediately
> shows itself. It may be, however, that the simple verb was extracted from a
> prefixed verb which underwent regular changes. Pack animals carry packs on
> both sides, so a very plausible base for the verb could be Celtic
> *ambi-wogos 'carrying on both sides'. The prefix *amb(i)- is well attested
> in Gaulish, and reflexes of PIE *weg^H- 'to bear, carry, transport' are
> known in other Celtic languages. Formation of the active /o/-grade
> *ambi-wogos would be parallel to Greek <amphíxoos> 'polishing on both
> sides'.
>
> Difficulties crop up in attempting to derive a Gallo-Latin *ambogita:re
> (whence *bogita:re and <bider>) from Gaulish *ambivogos. Haplology has
> evidently produced *ambosta: from Celtic *ambi-bosta: 'that which one gets
> both hands around', independently in Insular Celtic (Old Irish <imbas>) and
> on both sides of the Pyrenees (OSp <ambuesta>, Piem. <ambosta>, etc.; REW
> 411b; Bolelli, ItDial 17:139, 1941). To develop in place from *ambivogos,
> Gallo-Latin *ambogita:re would require that *ambiv- be either progressively
> haplologized to *amb-, or assimilated to *ambib- before the haplology.
> Neither seems likely. In fact if Anvers (Flemish Antwerpen) continues the
> name of the ancient Ambivarii, while Ambières continues that of the
> Ambibarii, the reflexes of *ambiv- and *ambib- have remained distinct into
> modern times. On this basis Gaul. *ambivogos might be expected to yield a
> Low Latin *anvogita:re, early OFr *anvoidier, which cannot produce the /b/
> of <bider>.
>
> The dialect of Perpignan has <abit> 'grandfather', against Paduan <aví>,
> from Latin <avi:tus> 'grandfatherlike' (Tappolet, Die romanischen
> Verwandtschaftsnamen 63, 1895; REW 834). This suggests early fortition of
> intervocalic -v- to -b- in (at least some) northern Pyrenaean dialects of
> Late Latin, so that a Gaulish loanword *ambivogos could indeed become
> *ambibogus, and perhaps by early haplology *ambogus, here. Such a word, if
> it found its way into central Gaul, could then yield Gallo-Latin
> *am(bi)boga:re 'to carry (packs) on both sides' with a frequentative
> *am(bi)bogita:re 'to carry (packs) on both sides repeatedly or regularly, to
> be a pack-animal'. Now, we have <bu:rere> 'to burn' already in the Latin
> Dioscorides by redivision of <amb-u:rere> 'to burn around', and a by-form
> *bu:ra:re implied by the gloss "buratum : incensum" (CGL 5:272.43). Thus
> nothing obstructs the extraction of Low Latin *bogita:re 'to be a pack
> animal, to move like a pack animal, to trot' which will give us OFr
> *boidier, *buidier, <bider>. The noun <bidet> stands to <bider> as <jouet>
> 'plaything' to <jouer> 'to play' and other deverbatives in -et to their
> verbs.
>
> To explain the presumed route of *ambivogos through the Pyrenees, one
> possibility is that Asturian ponies were exported under this name as
> pack-animals. A heavy ancient Celtic presence in Asturias is undeniable and
> to me it is reasonable that this was the P-Celtic homeland. The Asturian
> pony was known to Pliny (8:166) as <celdo:>, which has a variant <thieldo:>,
> apparently related to Basque <zaldi> 'horse' and Berber <aserdun> 'mule'. I
> do not know whether this word is native to the area or borrowed from
> Phoenician (as I suspect the 'silver' word is), but its use does not
> preclude a separate Gaulish term for the animal in its capacity as a beast
> of burden.
>
> By way of disclaimer, I must admit that I do not KNOW whether the foregoing
> scenario is historically correct, or even close. It is merely an outline of
> ONE possible mechanism by which <bidet> MIGHT be explained without recourse
> to onomatopoeia or an isolated root.
>
> DGK
>
>
>