mot-: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
A ''u''-stem ''mot''(''t'')''u''-, possibly also ''o''-stem ''mot''(''t'')''o''-, is attested in Gaulish onomastics, see {{bib|AcS}} II: 646 f., {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 227 et passim. Possible OIr. comparanda include ''moth'' (m. ''o''-stem) 'amazement, stupor', ''moth'' (m.) 'penis, male', and the gloss ''moth .i. guth'' 'voice' ({{bib|KGP}}: 245 f., 275, {{bib|GPN}}: 233). Etymologically unclear ''moth'' 'amazement, stupor' ({{bib|LEIA}}: M-66, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 299) can probably be excluded, as it is an ''o''-stem, though individual Gaulish attestations could belong here. Recent publications tend to favour the 'penis'-connection (e.g. {{bib|DLG}}: 230 f., {{bib|Meid 2005}}: 237, {{bib|Stüber 2005}}: 78, cf. also {{bib|RIG}} L-115 {{tr|lat|dagomota}} 'good to fuck' according to Meid), though ''moth'' 'penis' is usually reconstructed as PC *''muto''- rather than equally possible *''moto''- to agree with putative cognates such as Lat. ''mūtō'' 'penis' (PIE *''m''(''i̯'')''uh₁-to''- without reflex of the laryngeal in Celtic?) and/or ''mutilus'' 'truncated', see {{bib|IEW}}: 753, {{bib|LEIA}} M-65, M-77, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 270, {{bib|Matasović 2009}}: 282, {{bib|Zair 2012}}: 140. Delamarre {{bib|DLG}}: 230 argues that the variation in the stem can be due to the taboo nature of the word (cf. the phonetic uncertainties in another alleged 'penis'-word, {{m||buđ-}}). | A ''u''-stem ''mot''(''t'')''u''-, possibly also ''o''-stem ''mot''(''t'')''o''-, is attested in Gaulish onomastics, see {{bib|AcS}} II: 646 f., {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 227 et passim. Possible OIr. comparanda include ''moth'' (m. ''o''-stem) 'amazement, stupor', ''moth'' (m.) 'penis, male', and the gloss ''moth .i. guth'' 'voice' ({{bib|KGP}}: 245 f., 275, {{bib|GPN}}: 233). Etymologically unclear ''moth'' 'amazement, stupor' ({{bib|LEIA}}: M-66, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 299) can probably be excluded, as it is an ''o''-stem, though individual Gaulish attestations could belong here. Recent publications tend to favour the 'penis'-connection (e.g. {{bib|DLG}}: 230 f., {{bib|Meid 2005}}: 237, {{bib|Stüber 2005}}: 78, cf. also {{bib|RIG}} L-115 {{tr|lat|dagomota}} 'good to fuck' according to {{bib|Meid 2014}}: 69), though ''moth'' 'penis' is usually reconstructed as PC *''muto''- rather than equally possible *''moto''- to agree with putative cognates such as Lat. ''mūtō'' 'penis' (PIE *''m''(''i̯'')''uh₁-to''- without reflex of the laryngeal in Celtic?) and/or ''mutilus'' 'truncated', see {{bib|IEW}}: 753, {{bib|LEIA}} M-65, M-77, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 270, {{bib|Matasović 2009}}: 282, {{bib|Zair 2012}}: 140. Delamarre {{bib|DLG}}: 230 argues that the variation in the stem can be due to the taboo nature of the word (cf. the phonetic uncertainties in another alleged 'penis'-word, {{m||buđ-}}). | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 21:13, 12 March 2025
| Type: | lexical |
|---|---|
| Meaning: | 'penis, male' (?) |
| Language: | Celtic |
| Phonemic analysis: | /mot/- |
| Attestation: | muθikuś |
Commentary
A u-stem mot(t)u-, possibly also o-stem mot(t)o-, is attested in Gaulish onomastics, see AcS II: 646 f., Delamarre 2007: 227 et passim. Possible OIr. comparanda include moth (m. o-stem) 'amazement, stupor', moth (m.) 'penis, male', and the gloss moth .i. guth 'voice' (KGP: 245 f., 275, GPN: 233). Etymologically unclear moth 'amazement, stupor' (LEIA: M-66, Irslinger 2002: 299) can probably be excluded, as it is an o-stem, though individual Gaulish attestations could belong here. Recent publications tend to favour the 'penis'-connection (e.g. DLG: 230 f., Meid 2005: 237, Stüber 2005: 78, cf. also RIG L-115 dagomota 'good to fuck' according to Meid 2014: 69), though moth 'penis' is usually reconstructed as PC *muto- rather than equally possible *moto- to agree with putative cognates such as Lat. mūtō 'penis' (PIE *m(i̯)uh₁-to- without reflex of the laryngeal in Celtic?) and/or mutilus 'truncated', see IEW: 753, LEIA M-65, M-77, Irslinger 2002: 270, Matasović 2009: 282, Zair 2012: 140. Delamarre DLG: 230 argues that the variation in the stem can be due to the taboo nature of the word (cf. the phonetic uncertainties in another alleged 'penis'-word, buđ-).
Bibliography
| AcS | Alfred Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, Leipzig: Teubner 1896–1907. |
|---|---|
| CIL | Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (17 volumes, various supplements) |
| Delamarre 2007 | Xavier Delamarre, Noms de personnes celtiques dans l'épigraphie classique. Nomina Celtica Antiqua Selecta Inscriptionum, Paris: Errance 2007. |
| DLG | Xavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental, 2nd, revised edition, Paris: Errance 2003. |
