Re: bidet

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> Sorry, I've forgotten the explanation of Celtic vocalism:
> long /i:/ < /e:i/
> *bhe:id-nó-s vrddhi to *bhid-nó- (cf. Old Indic bhaidika- vs. bheda-)
> 'made of bits'

You certainly like to invoke that mechanism. Keep your eye on the vr.ddhi!

> 2012/10/16, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>:
> > A Celtic /bid/ is nevertheless attested, although not with the
> > meaning 'small': Scottish Gaelic bìd 'very small portion, nip, chirp'
> > and/or bid, Irish bíd (not in DIA) 'fence' (Alexander MacBain, An
> > Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language, Edinburgh 1911: 36;
> > Malcolm Maclennan, A Pronouncing and Etymological Dictionary of the
> > Gaelic Language - Gaelic-English English-Gaelic, Edinburgh 1925: 37);
> > apart from the irregular comparison with Welsh bid '(lopped) hedge,
> > quickset hedge, bush', a stem /biddo-/ seems to occur in Biddu[ CIL
> > XIII 7512 (Bingen, cf. Alfred Holder, Altceltischer Sprachschatz III,
> > Leipzig 1907: 862).
> > Bìd 'chirp' is probably another word (see MacBain), but bìd 'nip',
> > instead of a loan from bit (also fit for horses), can be its
> > corresponding Celtic cognate; a loan from a (relatively recent)
> > Caledonian Brythonic *bid = Welsh bid < *bi:tiu-s wouldn't leave
> > Continental biddu[ completely unexplained.
> > As for reconstruction, Old Indic bhinná- 'broken &c.' expectedly
> > means 'a fragment, bit, portion' as a m. substantive (Sir Monier
> > Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and
> > Philologically Arranged with special reference to Cognate
> > Indo-European Languages, Oxford 1899 : 757); its prototype *bhid-nó-s
> > would regularly yield Celtic *biddo-s (cf. MacBain 1911: 36 *bid-do-)
> >> Gaulish *Biddos (*<Biddus>, maybe directly attested by Bingen
> > <biddu[>).

Kluge's Law should have given Celtic *bitto-s. The gemination in Biddu[s] is likely hypocoristic, from a compound name whose prototheme was 'bite'.

> > Bidet < *biddittus < Gaulish *bidditto-s < Celtic *bidd[o]-itto-s
> > < PIE *bhid-nó- 'bit' + *it-nó-s (√*yet- > Old Indic yatate 'stretch >
> > place in order, marshal, join, connect; keep pace, be in line, rival;
> > associate, march together with, conform, comply with; meet, encounter;
> > tend towards; endeavour to reach, strive after, be eager or anxious
> > for; make effort, persevere, be cautious or watchful; join, nuite,
> > attach to' &c.) 'attached with a bit'.

Pack ponies hardly require bits. They are not piloted by knights in shining armor at breakneck speed. It makes no sense that ONLY nags, ponies, donkeys, and the like would be designated this way.

> > This was my proposal: *bidditto-s 'attached with a bit' (vs.
> > *am[bi]-uog-it-ittus 'small (animal) carrying (packed) on both sides
> > repeatedly or regularly'; no truncation am- > 0, no betacism /v/ >
> > /b/, no loan Occitanic > rest of Western Romance; comparative Goidelic
> > and possibly epigraphic evidence)

I required no *-itto- in the protoform, since French -et is highly productive (though perhaps all you Super Mario Brothers are anachronistic at heart, or anachronic as Tavi would say). I invoked no "truncation am- > 0", merely simplification as in LL <bu:rere>. Betacism is the biggest difficulty in my explanation but I believe it can be overcome by moving the word with the exported animal, as suggested. If you have a problem moving people, property, and words around, that is YOUR problem (and Super Mario's), not mine.

DGK

[excess copy deleted]