# Etymology of "Fish" in P-Celtic languages



## Silurhys

Fish:
Brezhoneg: Pesk
Cumbric: Pisk
Cymraeg: Pysgod
Kernewek: Pysk

Apparently derived from Latin Piscis. 
I can see how the Pisc in Piscis became:
B: Pesk
Cb: Pisk
C: [Pysg]od
K: Pysk

Yet I also see Gallo-Brittonic Esko derivatives as:
B: P[esk]
Cb: P[isk]
C: P[ysgo]d
K: P[ysk]

In conclusion I think the words derive from both languages. The main body of the words are from Gallo-Brittonic, while the Latin initial P was adopted.

Does anyone else share my views? If I am correct this needs to be cleared up as I can find nothing else to back my theory.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Silurhys said:


> Fish:
> Brezhoneg: Pesk
> Cumbric: Pisk
> Cymraeg: Pysgod
> Kernewek: Pysk
> 
> Apparently derived from Latin Piscis.
> I can see how the Pisc in Piscis became:
> B: Pesk
> Cb: Pisk
> C: [Pysg]od
> K: Pysk
> 
> Yet I also see Gallo-Brittonic Esko derivatives as:
> B: P[esk]
> Cb: P[isk]
> C: P[ysgo]d
> K: P[ysk]
> 
> In conclusion I think the words derive from both languages. The main body of the words are from Gallo-Brittonic, while the Latin initial P was adopted.
> 
> Does anyone else share my views? If I am correct this needs to be cleared up as I can find nothing else to back my theory.



Celtic name for fish comes most likely directly from protoindoeuropean word "peisk" or "pisk" meaning "fish". No need to go through Latin.
Latin "piscis" is a cognate of the Celitc names, in the same grade as Germanic "fish/fisch/fisk" and a name of a kind of fish in Polish "piskorz".
By the way, fish is "iasc" in Irish.


----------



## Silurhys

Ben Jamin said:


> Celtic name for fish comes most likely directly from protoindoeuropean word "peisk" or "pisk" meaning "fish". No need to go through Latin.
> Latin "piscis" is a cognate of the Celitc names, in the same grade as Germanic "fish/fisch/fisk" and a name of a kind of fish in Polish "piskorz".
> By the way, fish is "iasc" in Irish.



Thanks for that! Glad someone agrees. On all the pages I have found it claimed piscis the ancestor.
Wiktionary being one of them!

This information needs to be updated as I can't find a single source stating Gallo-Brittonic Esko as the ancestor other than my own.

It seems to me that Esko could have also become Usk (The river Usk) and/or Isca (Isca Silurum) which is similar to Gaeilge Iasc.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Celtic name for fish comes most likely directly from protoindoeuropean word "peisk" or "pisk" meaning "fish". No need to go through Latin.


The initial /p/ cannot really be explained any other way than as a Latin/Romance loan. The inherited PIE /p/ has been lost in the entire Celtic group.


Ben Jamin said:


> By the way, fish is "iasc" in Irish.


Which tells us what, exactly?

On the other hand I cannot see a basis for a complicated theory or fusing the Celtic and Latin words. Apart from the initial p, the Latin/Early Romance and Celtic words are too similar anyhow to decide.


----------



## Silurhys

I can't say that Gaeilge fish is Iasc I just took his word for it but I'm a bit confused about you answer first you say the only explanation is the adopted initially P but then you go on to say that  fusing the words isn't likely ?


----------



## berndf

Silurhys said:


> It seems to me that Esko could have also become Usk (The river Usk) and/or Isca (Isca Silurum) which is similar to Gaeilge Iasc.


Proto-Celtic *_eskos_, Latin _pisces _and Germanic _fiskaz _(English _fish_) are the same word. The fate of the /p/ is just different in the three language groups. In Latin is was preserved, in Celtic it is lost altogether (probably first /ɸ/ and then lost) and in Germanic it became /f/.


----------



## berndf

Silurhys said:


> I can't say that Gaeilge fish is Iasc I just took his word for it but I'm a bit confused about you answer first you say the only explanation is the adopted initially P but then you go on to say that  fusing the words isn't likely ?


I said because of the initial /p/ those words cannot be anything but Latin loans. This was in response to Ben Jamin's statement "No need to go through Latin".


----------



## Stoggler

berndf said:


> The initial /p/ cannot really be explained any other way than as a Latin/Romance loan. The inherited PIE /p/ has been lost in the entire Celtic group.



Out of curiosity, where does the /p/ in words like pump (five) and pedwar (four) in Welsh come from if /p/ was totally lost?


----------



## Gavril

Ben Jamin said:


> Celtic name for fish comes most likely directly from protoindoeuropean word "peisk" or "pisk" meaning "fish". No need to go through Latin.
> Latin "piscis" is a cognate of the Celitc names, in the same grade as Germanic "fish/fisch/fisk" and a name of a kind of fish in Polish "piskorz".
> By the way, fish is "iasc" in Irish.



It has been suggested that the original root was *_peik-sko-_ ("colored, speckled", connected to the same root as Latin _pingere _"paint", Slavic *_pis_- "write", etc.), because of the Welsh river name _Wysg_ (Usk). If this name is cognate with _iasc_/_piscis_/etc., this suggests that there was a closed syllable before the *-_sk_-, because the evidence suggests (though it isn't totally conclusive) that intervocalic *_sk_ normally developed to Welsh *_ks_ > *_x_, as it did in Welsh _baich_ "burden" < *_baskjo-_.

I'm not sure, though, how convincing the connection between _Wysg_ and _piscis_/_iasc_/etc. is in the first place -- phonetically, the match is perfect (apart from the questions around the final -_sg_), but I'm not sure what compelling evidence there is on the semantic side.


----------



## Silurhys

This dosent apply for P in all words, he is just stating that about the word fish. The fact he said "because of the initial /p/ those words cannot be anything but Latin loans" and he uses "No, protoCeltic *eskos, Latin pisces and Germanic fiskaf (English fish) are the same word" as a defence against me saying Esko could have descended into Usk or Isca make me think he has no clue what he's talking about. 
P in The Gallo-Brittonic languages (also called the P-Celtic languages for this reason) comes from Proto-Celtic Kʷ, this became Q in the Goidelic (also called Q-Celtic). 
E.G. 

Head/End
Proto-Celtic: Kʷenno 
Became
Gallo-Brittonicenno
Became 
P-celtic 
Cymraeg: Pen 
Kernewek: Penn/pennow 
Brehzoneg: Penn 
Cumbric: Penn
And
Q-celtic 
Gaeilge: Ceann 
Y Gaelg: Kione 
Gàidhlig: Ceann


----------



## Silurhys

Gavril said:


> It has been suggested that the original root was *_peik-sko-_ ("colored, speckled", connected to the same root as Latin _pingere _"paint", Slavic *_pis_- "write", etc.), because of the Welsh river name _Wysg_ (Usk). If this name is cognate with _iasc_/_piscis_/etc., this suggests that there was a closed syllable before the *-_sk_-, because the evidence suggests (though it isn't totally conclusive) that intervocalic *_sk_ normally developed to Welsh *_ks_ > *_x_, as it did in Welsh _baich_ "burden" < *_baskjo-_.
> 
> I'm not sure, though, how convincing the connection between _Wysg_ and _piscis_/_iasc_/etc. is in the first place -- phonetically, the match is perfect (apart from the questions around the final -_sg_), but I'm not sure what compelling evidence there is on the semantic side.



Thanks for that butt! I'm interested in finding out as much of Gallo-Brittonic as possable. The Usk/Isca was an on the spot thought, I had not even considered a connection before this. 
Absolute legend for sorting that out atleaset!!


----------



## Walshie79

The Celtic word for "salmon" (Irish eo, Middle Welsh ehawc, Gaulish *esoks) has been suggested as a non-IE loan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_substrate_hypothesis; but it looks to me that it could conceivably be from the PIE word for fish, perhaps with some metathesis (eskos~esoks) along the way? Perhaps worth noting here that the Usk has long been noted as a salmon fishing river.

There were two places called "Isca" in Roman Britain: Isca Silurum (Caerleon) on the Usk, and Isca Dumnoniorum (Exeter) on the Exe. These two rivers surely share the same meaning, Exeter is "Caerwysg" in Welsh. Why was the latter borrowed into English with -ks then? Perhaps the metathesis was still variably present, which again makes it look like the salmon word.


----------



## berndf

Stoggler said:


> Out of curiosity, where does the /p/ in words like pump (five) and pedwar (four) in Welsh come from if /p/ was totally lost?


Reflex of PIE /kw/. Compare Latin 4 and 5 = quattuor and quinque.


----------



## Gavril

Walshie79 said:


> The Celtic word for "salmon" (Irish eo, Middle Welsh ehawc, Gaulish *esoks) has been suggested as a non-IE loan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_substrate_hypothesis; but it looks to me that it could conceivably be from the PIE word for fish, perhaps with some metathesis (eskos~esoks) along the way? Perhaps worth noting here that the Usk has long been noted as a salmon fishing river.



The initial vowel could be a problem for this idea: _wysg_/_iasc_/etc. seem to go back to *_pei(k)skos_, and as far as I know, the normal development of the _-ei-_ in this word would be _-wy_- in Welsh rather than the_ e- _of_ eog_. (_eog_ is the modern form of_ ehawc_.)

Your point about the Usk being a salmon-fishing river is interesting, though. Is it common for rivers to be given names like "the Fish River"? Or, maybe it is more likely that _wysg _(if cognate with _iasc_, etc.) had acquired a more specific meaning such as "salmon" when it was first applied to this river: it seems pretty routine for rivers to be named "Salmon River", "Steelhead River" and so on.


----------



## Delvo

Stoggler said:


> Out of curiosity, where does the /p/ in words like pump (five) and pedwar (four) in Welsh come from if /p/ was totally lost?





berndf said:


> Reflex of PIE /kw/. Compare Latin 4 and 5 = quattuor and quinque.


PIE "5" had an initial /p/, and a /kʷ/ after that (which, in Proto-Italic or Latin, caused conversion of preceding plosives into /kʷ/), so "pump" for "5" is a case of initial /p/ being preserved in Celtic, which at least proves that there were some circumstances under which it could be preserved, just not exactly what circumstances were required.



Gavril said:


> Your point about the Usk being a salmon-fishing river is interesting, though. Is it common for rivers to be given names like "the Fish River"? Or, maybe it is more likely that _wysg _(if cognate with _iasc_, etc.) had acquired a more specific meaning such as "salmon" when it was first applied to this river: it seems pretty routine for rivers to be named "Salmon River", "Steelhead River" and so on.


Another possibility is that its meaning went from "fish" to "river" before it became the name of a specific river.


----------



## berndf

Delvo said:


> PIE "5" had an initial /p/, and a /kʷ/ after that (which, in Proto-Italic or Latin, caused conversion of preceding plosives into /kʷ/), so "pump" for "5" is a case of initial /p/ being preserved in Celtic, which at least proves that there were some circumstances under which it could be preserved, just not exactly what circumstances were required.


The theory is that proto-Celtic underwent the same shift as Proto-Italic (_penkʷe > kʷinkʷe_); compare Irish/Scottish Gaelic _cuig/coig_.


----------



## Delvo

And then reverted to /p/? That would be the first case I've ever read about in which any sound in any word changed one way and then changed the opposite way to end up where it started.

Or do the people who say /p/ became /kʷ/ say that the use of "pump" for "5" is a result of borrowing from somewhere else such as Proto-Germanic?


----------



## berndf

Delvo said:


> And then reverted to /p/?


Not reverted. /kʷ/ > /p/ was a separate, later sound shift that was specific to Brittonic languages (or p-Celtic language, if you follow the p-q-Celtic hypothesis) and affected all proto-Celtic /kʷ/ phonemes and not only those that are derived from PIE /p/. That's why both  /kʷ/s in *_kʷinkʷe_ became /p/.


----------



## yezik

Delvo said:


> And then reverted to /p/? That would be the first case I've ever read about in which any sound in any word changed one way and then changed the opposite way to end up where it started.
> 
> Or do the people who say /p/ became /kʷ/ say that the use of "pump" for "5" is a result of borrowing from somewhere else such as Proto-Germanic?




pump and five are nothing in common.
Piast. slavic,  -  hand eng ,or main fr. So , piast - fist - five. Look for an etymology of Belfast. White Fist, name of big rock in Belfast.
piat russ - penta grek
But:
Piad" russ - pied fr. - pod grek - foot eng


----------



## berndf

yezik said:


> pump and five are nothing in common.


Yes it does. The initial /f/ is a completely regular development from PIE /p/. What needs to be explained is the second /f/ in _five/fünf_. As Devlo said, this is explained as an assimilation effect.


----------



## yezik

needs to be explained is the second /f/ in _five/fünf_. -----
I see no problem. If trans P-F is a regular "slavic-german" trans, so a trans T- F(V) is famous "greek" trans.
Theodor-Tudor-Fiodor, Greek letter Theta, sounds between T and F, other name - Foma - Thomas.
Thats why combinations PH and TH are in use in Europe. 
I can add the P-F is one way street, always from slavic to euro. But a few adopted words from "german" to Russia after 18 century (Roma-novs) are adopted with alredy changed initial F. Flot, russian word Plot, so called "boomerang word".
Plavat" - to Flow ! Pole - Field, -  Polis - Folk - Halk (Turk) -Vulg (Lat)
Fleuve fr. but la Pluie - Rain eng.- Dozchd" russ. Remember douche fr.?
So, very good question about Peskar- Pisca -Pisce-Fish-Fisch.... Piscine ! fr 
Thanks.


----------



## berndf

You cannot take a sound shift, like _th>f _for Slavic loans from Greek, and put it in a completely different environment. In Germanic there is no such shift. And, to start with, there is no /kw/>/t/ shift in Germanic. So, the Greek /t/ in _penta _is irrelevant for Germanic.


----------



## yezik

a completely different environment""" ?? 
Northern Europe is not "a completely different environment" for Greek loans.
Yes, there no such shift Th-F inside of Germanic, but from Greek to Germanic .. Why not? 
There is no Chirche in Germany? 
There is no trans F-T inside Russian too. But there are loaned word from Greek. With trans Th-F . Or TH-T. 
Names and Terms from so called "antic Greek". Ironocaly, The Greeks dont undestand "antic greek".
Same for Europe and Latin.


----------



## berndf

Yes, completely different. Each language and each period have their own phonological rules. Some may be shared and some not. In Common Germanic neither sound shifts /kw/>/p/ and /th/>/p/ are plausible and neither is the Idea that five should be a  Greek loan. Common Germanic had Latin and possibly even Greek loans but not numerals. There isn't really more to say.


----------



## sotos

Gavril said:


> ... because the evidence suggests (though it isn't totally conclusive) that intervocalic *_sk_ normally developed to Welsh *_ks_ > *_x_, as it did in Welsh _baich_ "burden" < *_baskjo-_.



Interesting. It seems that the same happened  between Greek and Latin. The gr. Fish is ichtys (ιχθύς).  The initial  P is also missing. So,  Celtic fish words starting with  I are not necessarily transforms of the Latin.


----------



## Gavril

sotos said:


> Interesting. It seems that the same happened  between Greek and Latin. The gr. Fish is ichtys (ιχθύς).  The initial  P is also missing. So,  Celtic fish words starting with  I are not necessarily transforms of the Latin.



As far as I know, the -_khth_- of Greek _ikhthús_ wouldn't normally correspond to -_sc_- in Welsh and Irish. The Greek word is thought to go back to IE *_dhghu_- "fish", of which some possible cognates are Armenian ձուկ (_dzuk_) and Lithuanian _žuvìs_ "fish".


----------



## yezik

Some numerals in Germanic languages are realy difficult to understand for me. Celtic languages have  words in common with Slavic, but others - an enigma.
Sure, The Germans did not loan numerals in " Greece".  Especialy, If nobody"s never seen Greece on maps till 19 century.


----------



## Delvo

Gavril said:


> The Greek word is thought to go back to IE *_dhghu_- "fish", of which some possible cognates are Armenian ձուկ (_dzuk_) and Lithuanian _žuvìs_ "fish".


What did PIE's ancestor of the words "fish" and "pisces" mean in PIE?


----------



## Gavril

Delvo said:


> What did PIE's ancestor of the words "fish" and "pisces" mean in PIE?



It might have meant "speckled", if the root of the noun was *_peik-_ (see post #9 of this thread), or it might have meant "fat", if the root was *_pei_- (as seen in Latin _pinguis_ "fat", _pinus_ "pine", etc.) -- I'm not sure if there are any other theories on its origin. In either case, the root would have been suffixed with *-_skos,_ a widespread diminutive/adjectival suffix.


----------



## yezik

Gavril said:


> It might have meant "speckled", if the root of the noun was *_peik-_ (see post #9 of this thread), or it might have meant "fat", if the root was *_pei_- (as seen in Latin _pinguis_ "fat", _pinus_ "pine", etc.) -- I'm not sure if there are any other theories on its origin. In either case, the root would have been suffixed with *-_skos,_ a widespread diminutive/adjectival suffix.


--- Root is PESK, in all languages. Not PEIK. 
PESKAR becouse it kind of fish lives close or in the sand-pesok.
Very possible Celtics lost an initial P. <...> 
Origin word must be motivated in original language.and must have noun, verb, adverb, adjective formed with same root. If not... it means word is loaned in other language. Simple logic.


----------



## berndf

yezik said:


> PESKAR becouse it kind of fish lives close or in the sand-pesok.


Where did you get that from?


yezik said:


> Origin word must be motivated in original language.and must have noun, verb, adverb, adjective formed with same root. If not... it means word is loaned in other language. Simple logic.


Yes, simple and wrong.


----------



## yezik

---PESKAR becouse it kind of fish lives close or in the sand-pesok.---- 
I new it when I was a child . And I know thise kind of fish lives in any clear river with a sand bottom. On of "them" lives in my aquarium, (salt water version) <...>


----------



## berndf

yezik said:


> ---PESKAR becouse it kind of fish lives close or in the sand-pesok.----
> I new it when I was a child . And I know thise kind of fish lives in any clear river with a sand bottom. On of "them" lives in my aquarium, (salt water version) <...>


The question was not if you know a kind of fish called "пескарь" but what the Russian word for _sand_ (_песо́к_) has to do with the PIE word for _fish _(_*peisk-, *pisk-_ or similar).


----------



## yezik

O K One more time
Sand in Russian. and (check other Slavic Languages) is PESOK ! - and the root of this word is PES, -ok is a suffix.
This fish (kind of fish with a large areal) was named Peskar, (root is the same! ) -ar - is a suffix.  (check post 30).
But if you check name of this kind of fish in Latin official classification you' l see Gobio gobio.  
Bond - bondar , Zvon (son, phon) - zvonar, sonar, phonar,  Bake - baker (eng) , Pro-Indo-Europe ? What is between ?


----------



## berndf

yezik said:


> O K One more time
> Sand in Russian. and (check other Slavic Languages) is PESOK ! - and the root of this word is PES, -ok is a suffix.
> This fish (kind of fish with a large areal) was named Peskar, (root is the same! ) -ar - is a suffix. (check post 30).
> But if you check name of this kind of fish in Latin official classification you' l see Gobio gobio.
> Bond - bondar , Zvon (son, phon) - zvonar, sonar, phonar, Bake - baker (eng) , Pro-Indo-Europe ? What is between ?


I understand your point that the *Russian/Slavic *name for *this particular* *fish *is derived from _песо́к_.

The question here is the *PIE *word for *fish as such*, not for this particular species. I don't see the connection.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> I understand your point that the *Russian/Slavic *name for *this particular* *fish *is derived from _песо́к_.



The question is also: is this something Yezik found in an etymological dictionary, or is this his own hypothese.

The name of (supposedly the same fish) in Polish is *piskorz*, and Polish etymological dictionaries quote the word as having its origin in the PIE name for fish (peisk), not from sand (piasek).


----------



## francisgranada

According to Krylov's etym. dictionary:

Происхождение неясно. Возможно, слово пескарь образовано от существительного пискъ – по писку, который издает эта рыбешка, когда ее берут в руки. Есть объяснение, согласно которому название этой рыбки связано с существительным песок. Возможно также, что оно восходит к латинскому piscis – "рыба".

Of course, none of these three possibilities (<пискъ; <песок; cognate of piscis) implies the etymological relation between the PIE word for _fish _and the Russian word for _sand_.


----------



## yezik

пискъ 
It's possible too. But in Russian Pisk and Pesk are different roots. And I've explained before - this fish lives at or in the sand ! And Latin term Gobio, Goby was done by Ch. Linney as a link to the name of a Desert Goby. Desert is a sand.
And it is my own idea. (All right reserved). How it's possible , Russian before Latin, Celtic, Greek, Germans ?
No place here to explain. By I can give a reference in the internet, (in Russian). I must follow the rules of forum.


----------



## berndf

yezik said:


> No place here to explain.


*Moderator note: Indeed. I am afraid, we have to leave it at that. Further discussions of Russian пискъ will be considered off-topic.
*


----------

