Re: bidet

From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 70456
Date: 2012-11-15

In view of retained sequences of voiced plosive + /n/ in later
Primitive Irish, it would seem that any solution has to save both
MacBain-Zupitza's correlation of voice and Stokes' reference to accent
position

2012/11/15, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
> --- 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
>
>
>