Re: Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> 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

I need to dig up Kloekhorst's paper on thorn-clusters.

> >
> > 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

Yes, but your only argument in favor of /o:/-grade in such words was that I could not disprove it.

> >
> >> 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-!).

The Slavic words could just as well continue *per-kWo-s. Latin _facio:_, _fe:ci:_, _factum_ shows that *dHeh1- took a /k/-extension, and the Greek-Indic noun could just as well be built on *dHeh1k-.

> I expect You consider *-k- a root-extension in *bhrenko-s > Old
> Icelandic bringr 'hillock' (root *bhren- 'be eminent', Pokorny 1959:
> 167).

Koebler (online Altn. Wb.) cites only a weak fem. _bringa_ 'Brust', Gmc. *brengo:n, from the root *bHrenk- 'hervorstehen, steil, Huegel'.

> 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).

Koebler cites only a strong nt. _brj'osk_ 'Knorpel', Gmc. *breu(t)skam. The root could be the simplex *bHreu- 'spriessen, schwellen' (Pok. 169), making the IE formation *bHreu-skom, not *bHreus-kom.

> 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...).

True, but I am not proposing a non-IE source for _beccus_; I am going with Bolelli's (implicit) *bHeg-n'os.

As for uncontroversial examples of *R(e)-ko-, there may be some, but I had in mind a statistical analysis of such purported forms within Celtic. Something may be possible but highly improbable.

> 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

Assuming you could justify *bek- in the first place, as well as Zupitza's formulation of Stokes' Law from a sufficient number of other examples.

DGK