--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> 2013/3/22, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> A Celtic origin would be phonetically implied by a comparison with
> >> Bavarian butz, butzel 'person or animal charatcterized by a short and
> >> thick form' < Germanic *butti-z, *buttila-z < PIE *bhud-n'i-s,
> >> *bhud-n'i-lo-s: PIE *bhud-n'i-s > Celtic *buddi-s >
> >> Proto-Ibero-Romance *bodde
> >>
> > With the accent after the cluster I would expect Celt. *butti-s by Stokes'
> > Law. If the accent fell before the cluster I would expect *buddi-s by what
> > I provisionally (perhaps inappropriately) call MacBain's Law.
>
> *Bhr.: You probably remember that I follow Stokes' Law according to
> Zupitza's formulation, which predicts precisely the opposite outcome
> (*buddi-s if the accent fell after the cluster, otherwise Celtic
> *budnis with retained cluster).
Yes, we have so far agreed to disagree on this matter. However, if you accept Zupitza's formulation, you are left with a number of Celtic lexemes with tenues geminatae which must be explained otherwise. For example, Stokes (IF 2:169) refers Celt. *bukko-s 'he-goat' (OIr _boc_, MW _bwch_, etc.) directly to *bHug[^]-nó-s, making it cognate with the Gmc. words. Matasovic' on the other hand suggests "the Celtic forms might be loanwords from Germanic", and we all know how much you hate borrowing, at least in pre-Roman times.
Stokes' next example helps clear up another problem with Matasovic'. S. refers OIr _brecc_, MW _brych_, etc. 'speckled, variegated' to Celt. *mrekko-s, from *mreg-nó-s. (We would now write *mrikko-s from *mr.g-nó-s.) He connects this form with Lith. _márgas_ (neglecting the accent) and OIr _mrecht_, OW _brith_, etc. 'variegated, painted', these latter from Celt. *mrekto-s, from *mreg-tó-s. (Again we would write *mrixto-s < *mr.g-t-ós.) M. refers the _brecc_ group instead to PIE *pr.k^-, but cannot explain Celt. *b- for expected *p-. As cognates of _mrecht_ he cites not only Lith. _márgas_ but Grk. _amorbós_ 'dark', the root being PIE *merh2gW-, with loss of the laryngeal in this position in the /o/-grade (illustrated by _amorbós_) being generalized to the zero-grade in *mrgW-tó-s, underlying the Celt. forms.
In fact Grk. _amorbós_ means 'follower, attendant' and its placement here is an etymological stretch; one must assume 'not speckled' > 'dark' > 'enslaved' > 'servile' or the like. We may presume instead that *pr.k^-nó-s led to OWIE *pr.kkó-s, and *mr.h2g(W)-nó-s to *mr.hkkó-s, both meaning 'speckled', with a contaminated form *mr.kkó-s and analogical quasi-participial *mr.któ-s (perhaps distinguishing 'made speckled, painted' from 'naturally speckled, variegated'). These would lead to Celt. *mrikko-s (OIr *mrecc, later _brecc_, etc.) and *mrixto-s (OIr _mrecht_,etc.). Alternatively, the contamination could have occurred at an early stage of Proto-Celtic, with *ma(:)rk(k)o-s replaced by *mrikko-s under the influence of *frikko-s (thus avoiding confusion with the new word for 'horse', whatever its source).
Back when Torsten and I discussed Gallo-Latin _beccus_ 'beak', we both agreed with your Master, Johannes Hubschmid (Sard. Stud. 106) that it should be considered non-IE in origin. However, Tristano Bolelli (ID 17:151) attributes derivation from PIE *bHeg- 'to break' to N. van Wijk (IF 24:232-3). In fact, v.W. does not propose such an etymology for _beccus_ in this paper, but argues that Gmc. words including OE _becca_ 'hoe', OHG _bicchen_ 'to pierce', and MHG _becken_ 'to hew' are inherited from *bekk- < *bHeg-n-´- by Kluge's Law, not borrowed from _beccus_ or its Romance derivatives. Nevertheless we may compare this situation with 'buck' and infer that G-L _beccus_ indeed continues PIE *bHeg-nó-s by Stokes' Law. Moreover if Gaul. *bekko- 'beak' was borrowed into early PGmc and regularly shifted to *pekko- (later *pekka-), this noun generating *pekko:(ja)naN (wk. II) 'to peck' and *pekkjanaN (wk. I) 'to pick', we can easily understand ME _pecken_ against MHG _becken_, NHG _Pickel_ against _Bickel_, etc.
> > However,
> > goats are not particularly short and thick.
> >
> (...)
> > Perhaps *Baudda 'Beater' became the typical name applied to the dominant male in a herd of horned animals. This would become French dial. _bode_ 'Rind' (which M.-L. tentatively explains "mit anderem Vokal" under REW 1182a _bod_ 'Schallwort zur Bezeichnung des Dicken'). But perhaps the original sense of Fr. dial. _bode_ was 'dominant horned male in a herd', and this passed into use by Sp. and Pg. goatherds. Eventually the sense was weakened to 'male horned animal' and specialized to cattle or goats.
>
> *Bhr.: if You concede that 'buck' can proceed from the word for 'ox',
> You'll also concede that it can proceed from 'Lämmchen' (and that
> bucks are indeed short in comparison to oxen)
As Brian pointed out, the sense 'castrated male' for _ox_ is a specialization occurring in historical times; likewise _Rind_ is etymologically 'horned entity', no more implying biological neutrality than _Kind_ or _Weib_. I am suggesting that Fr. dial. _bode_ underwent a similar shift, more like 'bull' > 'head of cattle' > 'ox'.
And yes, lambs are short compared to oxen, but short and stout? How could they frolic with all those extra pounds?
DGK