mot-: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== 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), none of them well attested. 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. The reconstructed ''o''-stem also does not agree with the prevalence of a ''u''-stem in the Gaulish attestations, where it is visible (e.g. {{bib|CIL}} XIII 2269 {{tr|lat|motuco}} [Lyon], 3735 {{tr|lat|motucio}} [Trèves], 7171 {{tr|lat|motu[ac]us}} [Neumagen], {{bib|RIG}} M-208 {{tr|lat|motudiaca}} [coin legend], M-122 {{tr|lat|couertomotul[}} [coin legend], {{tr|gr|κασσιμοτουλου}} [Nîmes, {{bib|GPN}}: 63]); this also goes for etymologically unclear ''moth'' 'amazement, stupor' ({{bib|LEIA}}: M-66, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 299), though individual Gaulish attestations such as {{bib|CIL}} XIII 3992 {{tr|lat|mottus}}, 1069 {{tr|lat|dumnomotus}} could in principle belong with these etyma. Delamarre {{bib|DLG}}: 230 argues that the variation can be due to the taboo nature of the word (cf. the phonetic uncertainties in another alleged 'penis'-word, {{m||buđ-}}), but from a morphological standpoint the Gaulish element must be considered unclear. | 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), none of them well attested. 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''- or *''motu''- 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. The reconstructed ''o''-stem also does not agree with the prevalence of a ''u''-stem in the Gaulish attestations, where it is visible (e.g. {{bib|CIL}} XIII 2269 {{tr|lat|motuco}} [Lyon], 3735 {{tr|lat|motucio}} [Trèves], 7171 {{tr|lat|motu[ac]us}} [Neumagen], {{bib|RIG}} M-208 {{tr|lat|motudiaca}} [coin legend], M-122 {{tr|lat|couertomotul[}} [coin legend], {{tr|gr|κασσιμοτουλου}} [Nîmes, {{bib|GPN}}: 63]); this also goes for etymologically unclear ''moth'' 'amazement, stupor' ({{bib|LEIA}}: M-66, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 299), though individual Gaulish attestations such as {{bib|CIL}} XIII 3992 {{tr|lat|mottus}}, 1069 {{tr|lat|dumnomotus}} could in principle belong with these etyma. Delamarre {{bib|DLG}}: 230 argues that the variation can be due to the taboo nature of the word (cf. the phonetic uncertainties in another alleged 'penis'-word, {{m||buđ-}}), but from a morphological standpoint the Gaulish element must be considered unclear. | ||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | <p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:09, 14 March 2025
| Type: | lexical |
|---|---|
| Meaning: | unclear |
| 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), none of them well attested. 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- or *motu- 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. The reconstructed o-stem also does not agree with the prevalence of a u-stem in the Gaulish attestations, where it is visible (e.g. CIL XIII 2269 motuco [Lyon], 3735 motucio [Trèves], 7171 motu[ac]us [Neumagen], RIG M-208 motudiaca [coin legend], M-122 couertomotul[ [coin legend], κασσιμοτουλου [Nîmes, GPN: 63]); this also goes for etymologically unclear moth 'amazement, stupor' (LEIA: M-66, Irslinger 2002: 299), though individual Gaulish attestations such as CIL XIII 3992 mottus, 1069 dumnomotus could in principle belong with these etyma. Delamarre DLG: 230 argues that the variation can be due to the taboo nature of the word (cf. the phonetic uncertainties in another alleged 'penis'-word, buđ-), but from a morphological standpoint the Gaulish element must be considered unclear.
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. |
