Billeder på siden

162. Offryngau. The common forms are offrwm, offrymau.

Kyflebaythe is doubtless the same as cyffelybiaethau (similitudes). dictionaries do not notice the present meaning-" examples".

Troy ybu haбs. Perhaps it should be trwy y rei y bu, etc.


17. Ymgalein (if the right form, the last four letters are indistinct in MS.) is doubtless the same as ymganlyn, to follow mutually.

Ambechr6yth is not in the dictionaries. It is a compound of am and pech, and may here bear its strict meaning-" mutual sinfulness".

Y benthic kyuan (the capital), lit. the entire loan.

Trбy li6 16, etc. (by means of oath, etc.); Cf. liw dydd, liw nos (by day, by night); Arm. liou (“licence, permission, congé”).

[ocr errors]

172. Setwyr. Qy. a corruption of executor"?

6rth ymado, etc. It seems that something has dropped out here.

6rth gardode (in alms). None of the extracts in Zeuss under wrth (p. 682) exactly illustrate this meaning.

D6yllodrayth (deceit). An unrecorded abstract noun corresponding to the personal noun twyllawdr (deceiver) and the adj. twyllodrus (deceitful).

Ychwyhunein. Zeuss gives no example of this form of the second pers. plur., though he has ny hunein and ehunein (Gr. Celt. 2, p. 408).

18. Ymgeuethli6. The forms of this verb given in Pugh3 are ymgyfethl, to be striving together; and ymgyfethlu, to struggle mutually. Neither of these meanings suits this passage, which demands rather-" upbraid, expostulate with".

Rodi gwad (give denial). Welsh constantly uses the root form of the verb in this way as a subst., and especially after ar, exactly corresponding to the English forms with a-(shortened form of an=on), as a-fishing, etc. So we had (p. 122) ar duth (fr. tuthio, to trot), a-trot. Similarly, ar redeg, a-running; ar wib (fr. gwibio, to rove) e.g., myn'd heibio ar wib, to pass a-flying, on a flying visit; ar dan, ar daen (fr. tánu, taenu, to spread), e.g., y mae y gwair ar dán, the hay is scattered, i.e., not in cocks or mows; y mae e' ar nydd (fr. nyddu, to twist, spin) i gyd, it is all a-twist; ar dro, awry: ar dor (fr. tori, to cut), eg. (a provision dealer says to a customer), y mae gen 'i gosyn da ar dor ynawr, I have a good cheese a-cutting, in the course of being cut now.

182. Poenedig; here active in force.


p. 42.

Also an unregistered form of the same force as ochfaü, found on

Oir, i.e., ohir, fr. gohir, delay.




As the paper on the Celtic languages, published in the last number of the Cymmrodor, has been made the subject of some unfavourable comments, I wish to offer a reply to them (which shall be as brief as possible), that the disputed points may be, at least, more clearly understood.

The main argument of the paper has not been assailed. No reasons have been given, for instance, why the Welsh words corn and llin should be classed as borrowed words, while the Germ. horn and lein are treated as unborrowed. But I am asked if I hold that words common to the Sanskrit and Celtic languages may not, in any case, have been borrowed by the latter from the Latin? This I have not undertaken to show. I contend only that such words ought to be regarded as derived from a common Aryan stock, unless the contrary can be proved historically or otherwise. I have been referred to the eminent German philologist, Windisch, and I accept the reference. He notices a derivation of the Irish caille, a veil, from the Lat. pallium ; and, after pointing out that the connection is not probable, he adds, “Why may not the Ir, caille be a genuine Irish word ?" (Warum soll ir. caille nicht ein echt irisches wort sein ?-Kuhn's Beiträge, etc., viii, 18.) I ask the same question with regard to the words which I have discussed. Why must they be necessarily treated as borrowed words because they bear a resemi

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

blance, often a very remote one, to Latin forins? Is it sound philology, for instance, to assume that the W. cwn and the Bret. comb must be borrowed words, and to connect them with the Lat. concava as their source ?

The main object of Windisch's paper is, however, to prove that at some undefined period the letter p vanished from the

P Celtic languages, and that when it re-appeared, at a later time, it was used only in borrowed words, or as the representative of an older k for kv or qu. I read his paper when it appeared in Kuhn's Beiträge, but was not convinced by his arguments. It is certainly true that a primitive p has disappeared from many Celtic words, and that in their modern form this letter often represents an older k or kv, but it does not follow that an Indo-Germanic p has not been retained in any genuine Celtic words. Mr. Whitley Stokes maintains that it has been retained in some instances. I have read the paper in the Revue Celtique (vol. ii, p. 337), in which the writer controverts the opinion of Mr. Stokes ; but I fail to see that the Ir. Gael. pailt (plenteous) can be disposed of by suggesting that it may be borrowed from the Eng. word plenty, or that if the root pak may be assumed for the Indo-European mother tongue, yet “for the ItaloCeltic branch one must postulate quaqv (kak)”. This is assuming as true what has not been proved. The German philologist Fick holds a contrary opinion. I quote from the Verg. Wört. der Indogerm. Sprachen, 3rd ed., 1874, "pak, kochen, reifen, . lat. coquo, sup. coctum, kochen (für poquo durch eine Art Assin,ilation, wie quinque für pinque. s. pankan)." “Corn. peber, pistor, popei, pistrinum; cymrisch popuryes, pistrix ; ksl. peka, kochen. vgl. skr. pac', kochen, pac'a, kochend” (i, 133 ; ii, 155). Professor Curtius thinks it is doubtful whether kak or pak is the original form, but he adds,“ auf die Form pak gehen deutlich die sanskritischen und slawischen Formen zurück, ebenso die ältere

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Präsensform mécow=Tekjw” (Grundzuge,2 409). Professor Ascoli suggests that both forms may have existed simultaneously from the period of original unity (Corsi di Glottologia, p. 78). Professor Fr. Müller maintains that the Sans. pancan (five, Lith. penki, W. pump) is connected with Sans. pankti (series), and was primarily pancant, standing in a row, i.e., the five fingers (Beiträge, ii, 398). It must then be the primitive form.

The results of these different theories may be seen in the varying explanations of the Lat. pars, W. parth. Ascoli connects a primitive part with Sans. paț, to cleave (Corsi, etc., p. 80). Fick infers an Aryan par as the source of the Lat. pars, and refers to the Sans. par (prī) to spend (Wört.: 1,664). In the Revue Celtique (vol. ii, 333) the W.parth is assumed to be derived from spart, for squart, and to be connected with an Aryan skard, to break, and Sans, khad. I will not here discuss the question whether Ascoli or Fick has chosen the best Sans. relative, but this may be said, that they have referred to living words, and that the assumed root, sqvart, is wholly imaginary. It may be noted that the letter r is supposed to have fallen from the Sans. words paț and khad, and yet a suggestion of this kind on my part, in another instance, has been treated as an impossibility.

an impossibility. Few philological changes are more common (compare E. speak and Germ. sprechen). Professor Pictet has compared the W. pallu and other words with corresponding fornis in Irish. For this he has been assailed by Windisch and Ebel (Beitr. viii, 25; iii, 278), but until it has been proved that pallu is only a modern form, his conclusions cannot justly, I think, be condemned as unsound. Windisch states that the Ir. stem alla, in di-all (declinatio) is from a root palla, which he connects with the Lith. pulu (to fall), and Old N., falla (to fall, to fail ; cadere, deficere, Egillson.—(Beitr. viii, 2). This is identical with the W. pallu (deficere, Davies).

[ocr errors]

I can only offer a few remarks on the words ffoll, mal, and cocw, which have been questioned. I am aware that Dr. Owen Pughe is not a very safe guide, but "ffoll, a broad. squab," is found in Pryse's edition of his work and in Spurrell's dictionary. It is adopted by Whitley Stokes, or his friend Professor Siegfried (Beitr., vii, 398). Davies has "Ffolen, clunis", and this implies a root ffol or foll, with a similar meaning to butt in the Eng. buttock. Mal must have meant originally small. Richards (1759) has “mal, the same as ysmala, light" (levis, inconstans, Davies). We may compare the Sans. laghu, light (leger) and small (petit) (Burnouf). Fick infers an Aryan mailu, small, and refers to the Lith. mailu-s, smallness, and to the O. Slav. malu, small. Ysmala denotes mal as its root, and levis in the moral, requires the primary sense. Cocw. The root here is coc or cocc, and is found in cogwrn, "a little crab or wilding, a sort of sea-snail, a shell, as of a snail, etc.; also a little stack of corn" (Richards). Lhuyd has "kokkos, a cockle" (Archæologia, 285). (Cf. Bret. kok, the holly-berry; and Sans. kucha, the female breast; both from roundness of form.) Coc or cocc is a

genuine Celtic root, with a meaning that is clearly indicated, and this is all that my argument requires.

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsæt »