Re: bidet

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

>
> 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 Superseded.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.

Stokes gives both Urkelt. *ketti- and *keddi- (for example) in his own paper (IF 2:167-73, 1893), but his attestable forms (mostly Irish) reflect the unvoiced *-tt- etc., and he makes it clear that he was inspired by Kluge's Law.

> *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.

I cannot agree that Kluge's Law in Germanic works better when it follows one or more acts of the (first) Lautverschiebung. The conventionally accepted sequence (e.g. Streitberg, Urgerm. Gr. 138, 1896) fails to account for 'thane', a perpetual thorn in the side of theorists. PIE root-restrictions forbid *teg(^)H- so we must derive Proto-Gmc. *þegna- from an oxytone *tek-nó-, following Grimm and Verner but not Kluge.

As a social term 'underling' literally meaning 'offspring', 'thane' can easily be a loanword. Its phonology is explicable if it was borrowed into Gmc. after Kluge's Law operated, but before the entirety of the Grimm-Verner (first) Lautverschiebung. The source language was unlikely to be Gaulish, since pre-shifted loanwords indicate the retracted Gaul. accent, not the original PIE accent. I have argued elsewhere that Gmc. *paþa- 'path' is most likely borrowed from Gaul. *báto- 'passed (over), traveled (over)' from PIE *gW&2-tó-. (Insular Celtic knows the verb in the sense 'pass away, die'.) Bata:via/Betouwe probably involves a local reborrowing AFTER the Lautverschiebung, Gmc. *Bata:hwjo: 'Bata: Island', the Gaul. name *Báta: 'The Way' perhaps referring to the road leading to the temple of Lugus at Lugudu:non/Leiden. A Venetic source of *teknó- is possible as far as the accent goes. I have no credible evidence for Kluge's Law in Venetic. As pointed out before, the personal name Bukka may come from Illyrian substrate.

In this view the input to Kluge's Law is similar for Germanic, Celtic, and Italic (and possibly Macedonian). The output is different for labiovelars in Gmc., and I cannot yet say whether this has anything to do with the neglected stepchild among Gmc. soundlaws, the one which labializes a labiovelar in a certain environment, whose outcome has been badly obscured by subsequent analogical processes. I hope (perhaps vainly) to rehabilitate this soundlaw someday and place it into its proper chronological spot in the sequence.

DGK