Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

111111-----------------------~ Limited Latin Grassmann's Law: Do We Need It?* M

111111-----------------------~ Limited Latin Grassmann's Law: Do We Need It?* MICHAEL WEISS I. Following the lead of Walde 1906, I posited in my Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin (2011:156) the dissimilation of the first of two succes- sive aspirates when the intervening syllable contained a liquid (Limited Latin Grass- mann's Law or LLGL). The examples cited are: *il1ardheh2 'beard' (cf. OCS brada, OE beard) > *bardha >> barba (PL+) not tfarba 1 *dhra,/eti 'drags' (cf. OE dragan) > *dra,/eti > trahit (Pl.+) not tfrahit2 *./ladhros 'smooth' (cf. OE gl£d 'bright', OHG glat 'bright' < PGmc. *glada-) Lith. glodus 'smooth', OCS gladuku 'smooth') > *gladhros > glaber (Pl. +) not tlaber. 3 *This paper is a small down payment on the debt of gratitude and admiration I owe to Brent Vine, the scholar and the person. His meticulous, elegant scholarship is a model and inspiration. 1Walde and Hofmann l938-56:I.96, Ernout and Meillet 1985:66, de Vaan 2008:69. It.farfecchie supposedly from a Sabellic *farfa cited by all the etymological dictionaries following Meyer-Lubke l90I:527-8 is worthless. Schuchardt showed (1912:598) that this hapax from the Pistojese writer Francesco Bracciolini is also transmitted as farfecchie 'earworms' and refers to a particular style of wearing facial hair. Kroon en ( 20I3 s. v. barzda-) offers a different account of these forms. He begins with a proto-form *IJ1orzdh-eh2 'edge, brim, beard', which he compares with PGmc. *bruzda- (ON broddr 'tip', OHG brort 'point') and other forms that do not have surface evidence for a *z. He suggests, reviving an old idea of Pedersen's (1895:73), that both the Balto-Slavic forms and the Latin forms may have been borrowed from Proto-Germanic *barzda-. First, as Kroonen implicitly acknowledges, *b'1orzdh-eh2 can give neither the Latin nor the Slavic forms. *l:l1orzdh-eh2 would have given OCS tbrazda. The outcome of *ll1orzdh-eh2 in Latin might have been either tfarba, as Kroonen assumes, which would have assimilated to tborba (see below), or tfasta. Second, it is highly improbable on cultural grounds that both Balto-Slavic and Italic would have borrowed the Germanic word for 'beard'. Nor is it plausible that both Italic and Balta-Slavic would have borrowed the Germanic masculine a-stem as a feminine a-stem. Third, the connection with the forms meaning 'tip', though semantically conceivable, is not necessary. Fourth, Standard Lith. barzda occurs beside dialectal barza, and Latvian and Old Prussian have forms without -z-: Latv. barda, OPruss. bordus (EV). See Derksen 2m5 s.v. barzda and Smoczynski 2017 s.v. barzda. The latter gives a number of possible explanations for the East Baltic forms. 2Walde and Hofmann 1938-56:2.698 as the first of two alternative possibilities. Ernout and Meillet (1985:699) consider the etymology obscure. For de Vaan's view see below. 3Walde and Hofmann l938-56:I.603, Ernout and Meillet 1985:275, de Vaan 2008:263. The meaning of the From Dieter Gunkel, Stephanie W. Jamison, Angelo O. Mercado and Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Vina Diem Celebrent: Studies in Linguistics and Philology in Honor of Brent Vine, Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 2018, pp. 438–47. Limited Latin Grassmann)s Law: Do We Need It? 2. But is LLGL really necessary? Recently our honorandus, Brent Vine (forthcom- ing), has argued that PIE *f!R- rn.ust have had a "rustic" outcome as gR-, which contrasted with the "urban" reflex R-. The unavoidable example isgravastellus 'grey- beard' (PL Epid. 620, Palatine mss.; Paul. ex Pesto p. 85 L.) beside ravistellus (Am- brosian Paiimpsest) +-- rtivus cognate with PDEgrey.4 If this is correct, then, in the- ory it may be possible that instances of surprising stop reflexes of the voiced aspirates can be attributed to the same "rustic" stratum.5 In this light it becomes necessary to reexamine the evidence for the LLGL phenomenon. 3. First, the example of barba should be segregated. It seems unlikely on phonetic grounds, and at least unparalleled, that an intervening rhotic, no matter what its ex- act location, should be a contributing conditioning environment for a dissimilatory sound change. It is preferable to regard barba, as has traditionally been done, as a simple case of assimilation *farba > barba. Cf. BERBER of the Arval hymn ( CIL I2 2) perhaps meaning 'at every door'< *ferber < *dh11er-db11er. 6 Was this a regular assimi- lation? There are to my knowledge only two instances of the sequence JVrb in Latin: ( 1) ferbuit 'boiled' is from fervuit and hence is not relevant to the question at hand. ( 2) forbea is attested by Paul. Fest. p. 74. 7-8 L forbeam antiqui omne genus cibi appella- bant) quam Graeci cflop~rf;v vocant 'The ancients called every type of food forbea which the Greeks call </Jop/% "fodder"' and CGL 5.457.501 forbea [fordea] omnis herba 'forbea Germanic forms is somewhat aberrant: ONglaOr 'bright; cheerful', 0Egl.£d 'bright [poet.]; glad', OFris.gled 'smooth, slippery', OSglahniid 'cheerful', OHGglat glossed merus, limpidus (WbU Abrogans), lubricus (OXBl Jun. 83. £ 65r 12). The semantic development from 'smooth' > 'bright' > 'cheerful' is straightforward. See Lloyd and Luhr 2009:478-80. 4See Walde and Hofmann 1938-56:2'.+21-2, Ernout and Meillet 1985:565, de Vaan 2008:515-6 s.v. Kroonen (2013 s.v. *greiva), however, does not mention Lat. rtivus. 5Two other cases sometimes considered in this connection are inconclusive. Lat. gradior (on which see Walde and Hofmann 1938-56:1.615, Ernout and Meillet 1985:279, and de Vaan 2008:268-9 s.v.) certainly goes with YAv. aif3i.g:mlimahi (Vr. 17). The Old Avestan nominal derivativegm1zdi- 'course' with Bartholomae's Law < "grd:'-ti- shows that the root-final consonant was *dh, but there is no evidence that allows us to deter- mine \vhether the initial was *i' or *g. The formgrunda 'eaves' is certainly from *!/rendh- 'beam' and cognate with OEg1·indel 'bar', and Lith.granda 'thick pavement board' (Lagercrantz 1904:186, Smoczyri.ski 2017 s.v. g 1'andas) but it is only attested quite late and is a backformation from the much earlier attested suggrunda 'projecting ledge' as is shown by the u weakened from *a. Suggrunda is found in Republican Latin (Var. + ; SVCRVNDAM ILLRP 723, Capua) and continued in OFr. saurande. Grunda, on the other hand, first appears, at least according to the standard edition of Krohn 1912, in M. Cetius Faventinus (Liber artis architectanicae par. 12, p. 271, 3rd cent. CE): prim<J quad ex ea ad.fixae tabulae sub grunda ignis uiolentiam prahibent 'First because boards made from this (larch wood) attached under the eaves keep off the force of fire'. Faventinus' work is an adaptation ofVitruvius and in the corresponding passage ofVitruvius ( 2. 9) we read certe tabulae in subgrundiis circuni insulas si essent ex ea conlocatae, ab traiectianis incendiorum aedi.ficia periculo liberarentur 'Indeed if boards made from it were placed in the eaves around the apartment blocks, the buildings would be freed from the danger of fire by transfer of flames'. The true reading of Faventinus may have been tabulae a subgrunda vel sim. Be that as it may, the word was eventually freed from the compound as is shown by the glosses (e.g. CGL 2.36.z+grunda, rrrf.rr;, Kai To urrep Toll rruAEwva €;-f.xov) and by Ital.grand.a 'eaves'. The outcome of *-g"r- in medial position, which to judge from subgrunda is -gr-, is not necessarily identical to the initial development and given what will be said below aboutfrendere, the example may be irrelevant for other reasons. 6Weiss 2017, slightly modifying Ligorio 2012. 439 Michael Weiss "every plant"'. Forbea has been suspected of being an invention of the grammarians.7 This is unlikely. If the form is made up on the model of Gk. <f,op/3rl}, why do we find forbea in Paul. Fest. and not the obvious forba? And why is the gloss in Paulus omne genus cibi not omne genus herbae? Instead forbea can be a true cognate of Gk. cf,ip/3w 'I feed' < *h'1e1JJw - (M ye. po-qa [phor'gw a:]). But if so, this word would have to be a Sabellicism. Whether the form is a Grammatikererfindung or a Sabellicism, it is not a counterexample. Thus nothing stands in the way of positing a regular assimilation of *JVrb to *b Vrb with one certain and one speculative example. 8 4. Let us now reexamine in more depth the remaining putative examples. The derivation of trahit from *dhrag'1eti 'drags' (cf. Goth. dragan 'carry', OE dragan 'haul', ON draga 'haul') is not universally accepted. De Vaan (zoo8:626-7) considers a connection with drag an formally impossible and instead compares Mlr. tethraig 'receded', trdig 'beach, ebb', MW trei m. 'ebb', OBret. tre < *tragijo-. He also adds the family of Oir. traig 'foot', MW troet pl., PGmc. *frag-ji- Goth. fragjan 'run', bifragjan, OE fr.egan. This alternative requires further examination. Liam Breatnach (zoos) argued that the verb under the lemma trdigid in the eDIL is acn1ally a strong verb with a reduplicated preterite (tethraig) and future (tethrais), and there is no doubt t:iliat Breatnach is correct that this preterite and future pattern points unambiguously to a strong verb. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence for a strong present, although, in itself, this may not be conclusive, since none of the relevant forms is attested in Old Irish. What we do find in Middle Irish is most consistent with a W2 present (3rd uploads/Litterature/ limited-latin-grassmanns-law-do-we-need.pdf