Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/bukkos

bukkos
Is Gaulish bukkos attested ? Leasnam (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, though I haven't searched, but neither are many Gaulish words that were adopted into Latin. All I know is Matasovic claims that the "Fr. bouc 'goat, buck' (and the derivative boucher 'butcher') are reflexes of the Gaulish cognates of this PCelt. word." --Victar (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like is attested in a personal name. --Victar (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gaulish *buccos is a stretch, IMO; but it's possible. Old French estainbouc and consequently boc estaign however, are clearly derived from Old High German  Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing about Latin is that it is attested first in the Salic Laws of the Franks, and that is usually a good indicator that it may point more toward a Frankish origin rather than a supposed Gaulish one although that cannot be ruled out. The fact remains though, that it was certainly a term used in Frankish, because we can see a clear descendant in Old Franconian  > Middle Dutch, Dutch . Leasnam (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it would be a stretch. The etymology is quite often cited as Celtic, not just by Matasovic. He's a source for as a personal name but given its location, it's probably pre-Proto-Brythonic in this case. --Victar (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [EDIT CONFLICT] I say it's a stretch because those sources never say why they believe that it is from Gaulish. How did they arrive at that conclusion...what is their evidence ? I have never seen any actually make a convincing argument or reasonable justification as to why and how this word could have come from Gaulish. For all we know, the Gaulish word (and I do believe there may have been one) may have died out, then the word was reintroduced from a later source (Frankish)...we don't know for sure either way. But we cannot treat it as fact, because the existence of a personal name which might mean something like "buck" is no real proof that that word is necessarily connected in any way to . Leasnam (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not arguing that there wasn't a Frankish form, which I think is very well established. But I think a Gaulish origin can't be ruled out either, as you say. Best to just have both and let people make up their own mind. --Victar (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just think it's wishful at best; a guess at worst. To me, I think the Insular forms (in Irish, etc) were at one point used to postulate the possible existence of a Gaulish term so that a Frankish origin could be ruled out. At one time in history, it was seen as preferable to desire a Celtic origin over a Germanic one whenever possible. Hopefully those days are behind us. Leasnam (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you: both should be shown, and let the users come to their own conclusions :) Leasnam (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * | Here's a source with the place name, found in Aquitaine, which appears to be a Gallo-Aquitanian form, perhaps from Gaulish + Aquitanian name suffix . It could be that the word only survived as a name element. I doubt we'll ever know. Anyway, thanks for looking out and the discussion -- its always good to vet these etymologies. =)