Re: bidet

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >
> > 2012/10/24, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
> > >
> > (...)
> > >
> > > Anyhow, unless we can agree on the origin of geminates in Celtic, we have
> > > reached an impasse.
> > >
> > > DGK
> >
> > Just a rapid detail before the impasse: do You accept Wood's
> > theory of (generally speaking) sequences of plosive + */w/ yielding
> > geminates in Germanic, Italic, and Greek? I've a vague reminiscence
> > that You don't, but I don't remember exactly:
>
> Correct. In "Kluge's Law in Italic?" I argued that Latin <lippus> 'bleary-eyed' should be referred to *(h2/4)libH-no'- by Kluge's Law (the root found in Greek <alei'pho:> 'I anoint, wipe, smear'), not with Walde to *lip-wo'- by Wood's Law (although Kluge would work equally well with Walde's root *leip-). I believe *(h2/4)lip-wo'- would have regularly yielded Lat. *lipuus.
>
> > Francis A[sbury] WOOD, Post-Consonantal w in Indo-European (Language
> > Monographs published by the Linguistic Society of America edited by
> > George Melville Bolling, Aurelio M. Espinosa, Samuel Moore, Daniel B.
> > Shumway ��" Number 3 ‧ December, 1926), Philadelphia, Linguistic Society
> > of America, 1926 [Protat Brothers, printers, Mâcon (France), 1927]
> > [124 p.].
>
> Unfortunately this is not available on the Web, even in the dreaded Snippet View format. To discuss Wood's theory in detail, I will have to wait until I get a chance to visit the state university library, sometime before December I hope.

Alas! I could not find Wood's monograph at the library under its supposed call number P609.W6.

Regarding the Celtic gemination problem, it is striking that Zupitza did not attack Stokes's etymologies directly, instead merely sowing doubt with examples in which Old Irish -cc is continued by modern -g not -c. This must be separated from the question of Stokes's Law itself. I think the discrepancies arose in Irish primarily in two ways. One is reborrowing (almost certainly with new <clog> against old <clocc>). The other is stem-substitution, including paradigmatic mischief (probably with new <beag> for old <becc>, which looks like the result of *bHeg-no'- 'broken' by Stokes).

Zupitza's own material is too weak to justify dismissing Stokes and returning to MacBain's Rule that a tenuis goes back to a tenuis, and a media to a media, in all situations regardless of accent. Schrijver and others have accepted Dybo's Law in Celtic, which is accent-dependent, so that in itself should not be problematic.

Anyhow, what we should probably do is round up the examples given by Stokes himself (some of which are likely incorrect), those added by Lewis-Pederson, and those from other sources, and see whether the core of good examples is most easily explained by Stokes, or by other means.

DGK