Re: Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"

2013/4/2, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2013/3/29, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> (...)
>> >> For beccus I had already proposed, following the suggestions by
>> >> Delamarre 2003: 70 and 80, a root *bek- (or maybe *gWek-) 'sting',
>> >> unless *bekko-s < *gWet-ko-s (cf. *gWet- 'bulge', Pokorny 1959: 481).
>> >
>> > The obvious problem with *gWet-ko-s is that *-tk- should have undergone
>> > metathesis outside Anatolian and Tocharian, as in Celtic for 'bear',
>> > unless
>> > we presume that *-ko- remained productively in use with bare roots.
>> > Connecting 'beak' with 'bee' seems rather fanciful, even if a beak is
>> > pointy
>> > like a sting.
>> >
>> > DGK
>>
>> *Bhr.:
>> Are there instances of Celtic metathesis of non-palatal
>> *-tk-sequences? In Reiner Lipp's monumental volumes I can't detect
>> anyone, but maybe it's simply due to the combined effect of my lack of
>> time and its lack of a Wortindex...
>
> I have no examples, but it would surprise me if a centum language showed
> different outcomes for *-tk^- and *-tk-.

*Bhr.: possible if the special treatment of *-tk^- predates the
centum/satem split

>
> A more serious objection is that if *-ko- was productive with bare /e/-grade
> roots, there should be no shortage of *-ko-formations with such roots having
> different auslauts, not just those in *-k- or other stops expected to
> assimilate to a suffixal *k-.
>
> Matasovic' refers Celt. *balko- to PIE *bel-, which I do not follow. It
> seems to me that he implicitly assumes a laryngeal root-extension (and I
> have no problem with *-h1 or *-h2) and zero-grade. Of course, *bHelh1/2- or
> *gWelh1/2- would work equally well. But for your desired /e/-grade we must
> manufacture a root *bh2/4el-, *bHh2/4el-, or *gWh2/4el-.

*Bhr.: You know I prefer long /o/ grade with Osthoff's shortening

>
>> With *bek I really meant PIE */b/ rather than the bee-root *bhei-
>
> Yes, I thought so. Meyer-Luebke operates with Gaul. *becos 'Biene' (REW
> 1014). I have no objection to PIE *b- (but it is rare, and I suspect that
> it became phonesthemically associated with nasty noises and other
> undesirable stuff; a very few non-nasty roots like *bel- were grandfathered
> in).
>
> Anyhow, your theory of Celtic tenues geminatae needs to be checked for
> plausibility against the frequency of parallel formations from roots which
> do not produce geminates with the same suffixes.
>
> DGK
>

*Bhr.: Handbooks give Russian poperek 'transversal' (Old Church
Slavonic pre:kU) < *per-ko-s and Greek-Indic isogloss *dheh1-ko-,
-kah2 'receptacle' > Old Indic dha:k'a-s, Greek th'e:ke: (unless You
prefer a lengthened grade *dhe:h1-ko-!).
I expect You consider *-k- a root-extension in *bhrenko-s > Old
Icelandic bringr 'hillock' (root *bhren- 'be eminent', Pokorny 1959:
167).
An instance beyond any doubt is represented by Old Icelandic brj'oskr
'cartilage', Swiss German briesch 'colostrum', maybe Albanian breshkE
f. 'tortoise' (unless one accepts */ou/ > /e/ instead of /a/ in
non-metaphonetic environments) from root *bhreus- 1 'swell' (Pokorny
1959: 170-171).

I think one single uncontroversial case is sufficient to prove that a
R(e)-ko- scheme is possible (and beside this I note that such a tough
examination is possible precisely because Proto-Indo-European word
formation is so deeply explorable; non-Indo-European proposals simply
cannot afford that...).
Note also that this case has been made for *gWet-ko-s, which I added
as a merely prudential alternative to *bek-n'o-s with Stokes-Zupitza's
Law; this means that if I weren't be able to justify R(e)-ko- my
reconstruction *bek-n'o-s would become relatively stronger