kualui: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|meaning='for the son of Kuos' | |meaning='for the son of Kuos' | ||
|field_semantic=patronymic | |field_semantic=patronymic | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=3 | ||
|problem={{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 78, {{bib|Motta 2000}}: 199, covus | |problem={{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 78, {{bib|Motta 2000}}: 199, covus, Stifter ku | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
Patronym in {{m||-al-}} in the dative from an individual name ''kuos''*; the exact phonetic form and etymology of the latter are uncertain. | Patronym in {{m||-al-}} in the dative from an individual name ''kuos''*; the exact phonetic form and etymology of the latter are uncertain. | ||
To explain ⟨ku⟩ in a ''p''-Celtic language, the name was originally booked as evidence for the preservation of the sequence *''k̑u̯'' in Lepontic (as proposed by {{bib|Kretschmer 1905}}: 126) by Whatmough {{bib|PID}}: 69, who connected it with PIE *''k̑u̯on''- 'dog'. This theory being obsolete, {{bib|Eska 2006}}: 232, n. 7 (also {{bib|Eska & Evans 2009}}: 36) suggests that a subset of the names in ⟨kuV⟩ in Cisalpine Celtic (cf. {{w||kuimpalui}}, {{w||kuaśoni}}) could preserve the labiovelar *''k<sup>u̯</sup>'' before the change to /{{p||p}}/ (considering the late loss of inherited *''p'' as indicated by {{w||uvamokozis}}). As observed by {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 68 | To explain ⟨ku⟩ in a ''p''-Celtic language, the name was originally booked as evidence for the preservation of the sequence *''k̑u̯'' in Lepontic (as proposed by {{bib|Kretschmer 1905}}: 126) by Whatmough {{bib|PID}}: 69, who connected it with PIE *''k̑u̯on''- 'dog'. This theory being obsolete, {{bib|Eska 2006}}: 232, n. 7 (also {{bib|Eska & Evans 2009}}: 36) suggests that a subset of the names in ⟨kuV⟩ in Cisalpine Celtic (cf. {{w||kuimpalui}}, {{w||kuaśoni}}) could preserve the labiovelar *''k<sup>u̯</sup>'' before the change to /{{p||p}}/ (considering the late loss of inherited *''p'' as indicated by {{w||uvamokozis}}); this is rejected for ''kualui'' by {{bib|Stifter 2020}}: '''?''' due to the lack of convincing etymologies. As observed by {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 68, a monosyllabic name <sup>+</sup>''ku̯os'' (whether from *''k̑u̯os'' or ''k<sup>u̯</sup>os'') would not be plausible in any case; the name should be ''kuu̯os''* (with the sequence ''uu̯'' regularly spelled with single upsilon), which can be straightforwardly derived from a Lindeman variant of the 'dog'-word (see the morpheme page). Transalpine Gaulish comparanda are sparse; {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 139 compares ''cua''(''sus'') (Germania, s. {{bib|AcS}} I: 1180), {{bib|Rix 1995}}: 737 ''couus'' "on Gaulish coins". Alternatively, the anlaut could be /{{p||g}}/ ''guu̯os''*, though this would be etymologically unclear, or even less likely ''g<sup>u̯</sup>os''* (< PIE *''g<sup>u̯h</sup>''), tentatively compared with W ''gwelw'' 'pale' by {{bib|Sims-Williams 2007}}: 332, n. 118. The analysis offered by {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: '''?''', who segments {{m||kom-|ko(m)-}}{{m||u̯al-|u̯alos}}*, is negligible, since -''al''- is certainly the patronymic suffix (but cf. {{bib|Stifter 2020}}: '''?''', who also suggests that ''ku''- reflects a variant of the preverb {{m||kom-}}). Cf. also {{w||atekua}}. | ||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | <p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 18:11, 13 January 2024
| Attestation: | TI·26 (teromui:kualui) (1) |
|---|---|
| Language: | prob. Lepontic |
| Word Type: | proper noun |
| Semantic Field: | patronymic |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | dat. sg. masc. |
| Stem Class: | o |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | kuu̯-al-ūi̯ |
| Phonemic Analysis: | /kuu̯alūi̯/ (?) |
| Meaning: | 'for the son of Kuos' |
Commentary
Patronym in -al- in the dative from an individual name kuos*; the exact phonetic form and etymology of the latter are uncertain.
To explain ⟨ku⟩ in a p-Celtic language, the name was originally booked as evidence for the preservation of the sequence *k̑u̯ in Lepontic (as proposed by Kretschmer 1905: 126) by Whatmough PID: 69, who connected it with PIE *k̑u̯on- 'dog'. This theory being obsolete, Eska 2006: 232, n. 7 (also Eska & Evans 2009: 36) suggests that a subset of the names in ⟨kuV⟩ in Cisalpine Celtic (cf. kuimpalui, kuaśoni) could preserve the labiovelar *ku̯ before the change to /p/ (considering the late loss of inherited *p as indicated by uvamokozis); this is rejected for kualui by Stifter 2020: ? due to the lack of convincing etymologies. As observed by Lejeune 1971: 68, a monosyllabic name +ku̯os (whether from *k̑u̯os or ku̯os) would not be plausible in any case; the name should be kuu̯os* (with the sequence uu̯ regularly spelled with single upsilon), which can be straightforwardly derived from a Lindeman variant of the 'dog'-word (see the morpheme page). Transalpine Gaulish comparanda are sparse; Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 139 compares cua(sus) (Germania, s. AcS I: 1180), Rix 1995: 737 couus "on Gaulish coins". Alternatively, the anlaut could be /g/ guu̯os*, though this would be etymologically unclear, or even less likely gu̯os* (< PIE *gu̯h), tentatively compared with W gwelw 'pale' by Sims-Williams 2007: 332, n. 118. The analysis offered by Delamarre 2007: ?, who segments ko(m)-u̯alos*, is negligible, since -al- is certainly the patronymic suffix (but cf. Stifter 2020: ?, who also suggests that ku- reflects a variant of the preverb kom-). Cf. also atekua.
Bibliography
| AcS | Alfred Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, Leipzig: Teubner 1896–1907. |
|---|---|
| Delamarre 2007 | Xavier Delamarre, Noms de personnes celtiques dans l'épigraphie classique. Nomina Celtica Antiqua Selecta Inscriptionum, Paris: Errance 2007. |
| Eska & Evans 2009 | Joseph F. Eska, David Ellis Evans, "Continental Celtic", in: Martin J. Ball, Nicole Müller (eds), The Celtic Languages, 2nd edition, London – New York: Routledge 2009, 28–53. |
| Eska 2006 | Joseph F. Eska, "The genitive plural desinence in Celtic and dialect geography", Die Sprache 46/2 (2006), 229–235. |
