From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 71129
Date: 2013-03-28
>(...)
>
> --- 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.
>
>*Bhr.: Professor Hubschmid's views about non-Indo-European etyma
> And yes, lambs are short compared to oxen, but short and stout? How could
> they frolic with all those extra pounds?
>
> DGK
>