Re: bidet

2012/10/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

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

(...)

>> > 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[>).

> DGK:
> 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'.

Bhr.:

It isn't Kluge's, it's Stokes' Law; tt < *tn + stress, dd < *dn +
stress. You may not believe in it, but that's its formulation

(...)

>> > 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)

> DGK:
> I required no *-itto- in the protoform, since French -et is highly
> productive

*Bhr.:
OK, *ambi-uogo- + -itare + et (it was just a synthetic formulation)

> DGK:
> (though perhaps all you Super Mario Brothers are anachronistic at
> heart, or anachronic as Tavi would say).

*Bhr.:
Apparently You can't recognize that I don't belong to what You
call Super Mario Brothers. I'll explain for the last time: my model
lets PIE start earlier than they think and go on until later than
Mainstream Indo-Europeanists think, so if there's something (clearly
not all) in common with Continuists there's also the same amount of
assumptions (evidently not all) in common with Mainstreamers.
In any case, this has scarcely anything to do with the etymologies
we are discussing

DGK:

> I invoked no "truncation am- > 0",
> merely simplification as in LL <bu:rere>.

*Bhr.:
OK, "no simplification as in LL <bu:rere>. The difference with my
hypothesis is exactly the same

DGK:

> 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.

*Bhr.:
Peoples and words do move around, of course. The problem (not just
mine) is: do You think that, ceteris paribus, every word of substrate
origin has definitely the same probabilty to have gone through
diatopic movements than to be simply an in-situ heritage?
If You think so, You cannot see the problem; if You don't think
so, the (relative) shortcoming of Your proposal remains

>
> DGK
>
> [excess copy deleted]
>
>
>

*Bhr.:
I can't read the rest