Re: Osthoff's Law and T > M in Gaulish loanwords (was: Is Bas

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

2013/9/20, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>> [...]
>>
>> [DGK]
>> But _landa_ 'campo, pieza de terreno' occurs widely in Basque (Bisc.,
>> Guip.,
>> Aezc., Lab., High & Low Nav., Ronc.) and appears to continue Gaul. *landa:
>> directly. Moreover a Late Gaul. *lanna would have given Bq. *lana, since
>> Latin _anno:na_ gives Bq. _anoa_. If _larra-_, _larre_ is borrowed from
>> Gaulish, it probably continues a collective *la:rja: (or *larja: by
>> Osthoff's shortening) 'flat area' from *la:ro- 'flat surface, floor', PIE
>> *pl.h2-ró- or *pléh2-ro-. (Latin _pla:nus_ can represent *pl.h2-nó- and
>> provides no evidence for a heteroclite, pace Matasovic', only for
>> different
>> suffixes.)
>>
> Bhr.:
>
> All right, I just wonder why Osthoff's shortening in *la:rja:
> (wouldn't it rather develop a Sievers' variant *la:rija:?)
>
> DGK:
>
> In his draft glossary Matasovic' has several examples of heavy syllables not
> developing a Sievers' variant, e.g. Proto-Celtic *argjo- 'white; snow' >
> Gaul. Argio-talus, etc.

Bhr.: Are You sure that Argiotalus is /ar-gjo/ and not /ar-gi-(j)o/?

DGK:  No, of course not, just as I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny.

>[DGK] I do not know whether Osthoff would be applicable
> in this time frame; hence my parenthetical guess. A Basque borrowing would
> not distinguish length.
>
> Your own

Bhr.: van Windekens'

> [DGK] etymology of _glo:ria_ does not involve Sievers.

Bhr.: nor Osthoff

> [DGK] My problem is
> that I never heard of being "green with glory",

Bhr.: "bright, enlightened with glory"

With a greenish tint?  That might work for Popeye, whose glory came from spinach.  This etymology is only marginally better than van Windekens' explanation of Greek _thálassa_ as 'flat water' (BzN 1:200, 1949-50), using IE *tel-, *akWa:- with his Pelasgian soundlaws.

> [DGK] so I find the route Gaulish
> *klovesja: (vel sim.) > Ligurian > Old Latin more plausible, as with
> _gladius_. However, in order to investigate this theory that initial
> Gaulish tenues became mediae when borrowed into Ligurian (which I now
> attribute to differences in initial consonant strength, NOT aspiration), I
> need to get a copy of J.U. Hubschmied's long paper on Late Gaulish in Vox
> Romanica vol. 3 from the university library. Once I get this paper, it may
> turn out that counter-examples kill my theory.

Bhr.: if You formulate Your theory in these very terms, I don't think
You'll find counter-examples there, because Hubschmied doesn't mention
Ligurian

DGK:  No, but I had to peruse the paper to ensure that nothing deduced by H. for late or dialectal Gaulish could explain the anlaut-voicing without further assumptions.  It appears that my theory is still viable.  Two other issues in the paper are worth noting.  First, H. places *-eu- > *-ou- within the history of Gaulish, against Matasovic' who considers it a Proto-Celtic shift.  If H. is correct about Tissiniva < Gaul. *tegesa newia (pp. 49-50) and Leuca/Leu(g)k < *leuca: (86-7), it becomes difficult to accept M.'s contention that -eu- is merely a "spelling variant" of -ou- in old names.

Second, H.'s treatment of the Interlaken/Inderlappen problem (pp. 52-8) is flawed by ad-hoc assumptions (Celt. *-kw-, not *-p-, maintained by Systemzwang, then Late Gaul. *-gw- > *-bb- > Alem. -pp-).  Harald Bichlmeier's more recent explanation (HS 122:257-62, 2009) is not much better.  I think an Illyrian place-name makes the most sense, but the prospects of convincing Celticists of this are dim.