2012/10/23, dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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
> DGK:
> Superseded. See Miguel's comments in message #56156.
*Bhr.:
An extremely short comment without any additional argumentation (pro or contra).
Best formulation:
Ernst ZUPITZA, «Über doppelkonsonanz [sīc] im Irischen», Zeitschrift
für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Begründet von A. Kuhn. Herausgegeben von E. Kuhn und J.
Schmidt. Band XXXVI. Neue Folge Band XVI (Gütersloh, Druck und Verlag
von C. Bertelsmann, 1900 [IV, 668 S.]), S. 202-245.
Kluge's Law is best understood if operating after 1st
Lautverschiebung, so its very input is different from Celtic (where
the Law - for those who believe in it - operates before
dephonologization of */p/); such difference is reminiscent of
Graßman's Law in Greek and Indo-Aryan respectively, so OK for
considering it one and the same tendence, but since the Scholars who
investigated it were two or more it's fair to mention them.
Anyway, this is just a matter of labels. What's crucial is the origin
of geminates in Celtic (and Ligurian, according to the other message
of Yours). That would deserve a thread for its own, but I don't want
to start it because I already know what would be its major impasse:
someone accepts reconstructions of PIE accented words only when their
continuations are attested by diagnostic languages (especially Old
Indic and Greek), other ones admit that back-projections from Celtic
can exhibit different accentuation (for morphological reasons). It's
like lengthened grade...
A disappointing detail is that the whole controversy about the Law
originated in a personal quarrel between Stokes and the young
Thurneysen (when reviewing Stokes' Urkeltischer Sprachschatz); since
then, Thurneysen's followers (Pokorny, Karl Horst Schmidt, Patrizia de
Bernardo Stempel) have all felt themselves compelled to reject the Law
>> *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?
>
> DGK
> I do not understand the question. Can you give examples?
>
*Bhr.:
Let's consider only words that we agree in assigning to a given
substrate, e.g. Gaulish words in Gallo-Romance. Let's take into
consideration only words that are attested in just one dialect
(without any Latin or Standard French evidence), say Lausanne's
Franco-Provençal; I know that this isn't the case of bidet, but I'm
trying to show the attitudes in a prototypical situation.
To put it on a personal level (just for the argument's sake), I would
explain virtually all words of Gaulish origin in Lausanne's dialect as
Helvetian relics (and those also attested in Genevan as ancient
isoglosses between Allobrogian and Helvetian); I wouldn't like the
possibility that some word could be a Treverian one, that was brought
South of the Jura at the time Trier was residence of the Western Roman
Caesar and has been preserved only in a conservative milieu like
Burgundy, disappearing elsewhere and emerging only in Swiss Romand. I
think You too would agree that the latter possibility is less
probable.
Now, let's turn to words with a much wider diffusion. Of course,
everybody knows that a substrate word can have survived only in a
limited region and subsequently spread to the rest of its present-day
area. Nobody would deny, on the other hand, that - unless reasons
testify to the contrary - the word's area can have been the same or
even larger in ancient times and the word can have directly survived
everywhere in an independent and parallel fashion.
The question is, then: do You think that both possibilities (I
stress: without additional phonological reasons) have precisely the
same probability (50% and 50% respectively)?
>
(...)