From: dgkilday57
Message: 70239
Date: 2012-10-23
>Superseded. See Miguel's comments in message #56156.
> 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
> (...)All right, I see your point, since we agree that your reconstruction with *-ittos was "formal" or "synthetic", not anachronistic.
> >> > 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:My difference is that I see no disadvantage in removing (real or perceived) affixes.
> > 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:I do not understand the question. Can you give examples?
> > 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
>