# Gaelic an- 'very'



## ryba

Dia dhaoibh,

I'm not sure about Manx, but in Irish and Scottish Gaelic there is this prefix _an-_, used to emphasize the meaning borne by the root:


Irish _beag _'small'_, an-bheag_ 'very small' (source: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/an-#Irish), 
Irish _blasta_ 'tasty', _an-bhlasta_ 'very tasty' (source: "Tuilleadh Téarmaí Bia");

(I take it that, in Munster Irish, this would take the form of _ana-bhlasta_, as in _Mo Sgéal Féin_ by Peadar Ua Laoghaire here: _Seanabhean dheas ghrámhar ab ea í. Is minic ’na dhiaidh san a thugas tamall de lá ’na tigh beag ag cainnt léi. Ní raibh aon fhocal Béarla aici, ach bhí Gaelainn ana-bhreá ana-bhlasta aici. Beannacht Dé lena hanam!_) 

 In Scottish Gaelic, this appears to be true only with some lexemes:


_mòr_ 'big', _an-mhòr_ 'huge', 
but _blasta _'tasty', _ana-blasta_ 'insipid', where the suffix negates the meaning of the lexeme.

On the other hand, there's no lenition (b -› bh) in the latter, which might (?) imply that the two aren't exactly the same. I've found an instance of SG _ana-bhlasta_ here, but as a _n00b_ to Celtic, although I cän make out what the discussion is about, I can't really tell what they're saying in this particular sentence. (I've just opened a thread in OL to find it out.) 
 
Now, is it possible that the etymology of both is the same? That's what the Wiktionary article on Irish _an-_ states under the heading "Etymology". To wit,
"From Old Irish _an-_, _in-_, from Proto-Celtic _*an-_, from Proto-Indo-European _*n̥-_",​ 
which makes it a cognate to English _un-_ (as in _un- +__‎__ tasty_) as well as Latin _in-_ (as in _insipidus_, from _in-_ + _sapidus_).

That doesn't seem inconceivable, but could you explain how the suffix (apparently) developed this new meaning ('negation' -› 'reinforcement')? I've looked around for academic sources that would enlighten me, but I couldn't find any.


----------



## Gavril

ryba said:


> On the other hand, there's no lenition (b -› bh) in the latter, which might (?) imply that the two aren't exactly the same.




There are examples of lenition with _an_- where the prefix has a clearly negative meaning: e.g. Scots Gaelic _ain*fh*ios _"ignorance" < _fios _"knowledge". I don't know the historical explanation of these different outcomes.

In Welsh, the corresponding prefix *an*- causes lenition in some cases (_anferth _< _berth_; see below), but more commonly it causes nasal mutation: _anghofio_ "forget" < _an_- + _cofio_ "remember".




> That doesn't seem inconceivable, but could you explain how the suffix (apparently) developed this new meaning ('negation' -› 'reinforcement')? I've looked around for academic sources that would enlighten me, but I couldn't find any.



In Welsh, the prefix *an*- generally has a negative meaning: _anodd_ "difficult" < _an_- + _hawdd_ "easy", _anghofio_ "forget", and so on. However, there are some words with *an*- that have developed either a positive, or not transparently negative meaning:

_anferth_ (which seems to come from the negation of _berth_ "fair, beautiful") has two meanings: "ugly, horrible", and (probably more recent) "huge, tremendous"

_anhygoel_ (negation of _hygoel _"credible, believable") means "doubtful, improbable", but also "incredible" (possibly due to the influence of English _incredible_, which has a similar duality of meaning)

In both cases, it is probably fair to say that the simpler words (_berth, hygoel_) are less commonly used than the words derived from them (_anferth, anhygoel_). This may serve to weaken the association of _an_- with negativity in speakers minds, and the meanings "huge" and "incredible" could (at least in theory) promote an association of _an_- with augmentation/intensification.

These examples by themselves don't prove anything about a common Celtic development of *_n_.-, but they do suggest a way in which Gaelic _an_- could have developed intensifying semantics. To demonstrate that this development happened in Gaelic, it would be helpful to the equivalent of words like _anferth_/_anhygoel_ that could have "bridged the gap" between the two meanings of _an_-.


----------



## ryba

Thanks a lot, Gavril! Very informative. Sounds like a nice research topic! It would also be great if it were possible to establish how the Brythonic substratum might have affected the distribution of the two meanings in Scottish Gaelic, but I guess that's one of the things we'll probably never know for sure.


----------



## CapnPrep

I don't have access to the full text on-line, but this article seems to be exactly what you're looking for:
Myles Dillon. (1944) "THE NEGATIVE AND INTENSIVE PREFIXES IN IRISH AND THE ORIGIN OF MODERN IRISH _AN_ ‘VERY; GREAT’". _Transactions of the Philological Society_ 43(1):94–107.​
According to Calder's Gaelic Grammar, the origin of the intensive prefix is "I.E. ndhi" and the corresponding Welsh form is _en_-.


----------



## ryba

CapnPrep said:


> According to Calder's Gaelic Grammar, the origin of the intensive prefix is "I.E. ndhi" and the corresponding Welsh form is _en_-.



Page 217, thanks a lot!



CapnPrep said:


> I don't have access to the full text on-line,  but this article seems to be exactly what you're looking for:Myles Dillon. (1944) "THE NEGATIVE AND INTENSIVE PREFIXES IN IRISH AND THE ORIGIN OF MODERN IRISH _AN_ ‘VERY; GREAT’". _Transactions of the Philological Society_ 43(1):94–107.​


​ 
Thanks a lot, CapnPrep! I have just (quite hastily) read through the paper. I managed to find it here. The premise is that both negative and intensive _an-_ have the same etymology, and the explanation given by the author is that the development from a negative prefix (A) to an intensifying particle was bridged by:

(B) the pejorative overtones it acquired in many words,
- where the pejorative connotation can be immediate, as in _ád _‘luck’ : _anád_ ‘ill luck’, _úain_ ‘time’ : _anúain_ ‘untimely’
- or by extention, as in _mían_ ‘desire’ : _anmían_ (_ainmhian_) ‘evil desire, passion’ (Dillon 1944: 95-96),
(C) the emphatic function it developed when added to lexemes that in itself already meant something bad, as in _brath_ ‘treachery’ : _anbrath_ ‘(great) treachery’, although the addition of _great_ or _excessive_ to the translation may often be a little bit too much, as this sort of _an-_ seems to have often been “used merely as a stylistic device for alliteration” (Dillon 1944: 97-98),
(D) the meaning of ‘excessive’ or ‘bad through excess’ it, consequently, began to express when attached to lexemes whose meaning wasn't intrinsically bad, as in _barr_ ‘addition’ : _anbharr _‘excess’, _caitheamh_ ‘to spend’ : _anchaitheamh_ ‘waste’ (Dillon 1944: 98); “none of the examples listed under D is earlier than the sixteenth century” (Dillon 1944: 99).

Now, the key point here is that there is a certain discontinuation between this ancient prefix (A, B, C, D) and the modern affirmative intensive particle _an-_ (Munster _ana-_) 1944: 105-106). The particle would have developed from the prefix at a point when the prefix (ousted by other prefixes from its negative and pejorative functions) had stopped being productive (Dillon 1944: 99) but, instead of assuming its non-productive fate, it assumed another function, that of an affirmative intensive. So, semantically, we got ‘excessive’ -› ‘very’, and, formally, we got an unstressed particle, in which it followed the fate of the prefix _com-_ expressing “terms of equality”. It is the analogy with _com-_ that is supposed to explain the formal-functional metamorphosis of _an- _(Dillon 1944: 99-103), and the appearance of _-a-_ in Munster _ana-_ may be compared to Muster _seana-_ for _sean-_ (Dillon 1944: 102).

Unlike Calder (1923: 217), Dillon discards the the PC prefix _*ande-_ (Gaulish _ande-_ < PIE *_n__̥dhi_) as a possible source because, as he argues, it can't be convincingly proven to be attested in Irish at all, and, even if it is, it's too much of an archaism to be the source for modern _an- _(Dillon 1944: 103-105), not to mention that it “seems to be foreign to adjectives in Irish as in Welsh” (Dillon 1944: 107). I have a hard time understanding those last pages, as there are just too many contradictions like “*_n__̥dhi_ should appear in Irish as _ind_” (page 104) preceded and followed by a discussion of Irish _and-_. Dillion sees Welsh _en-_ as either a generalized umlauted form of _an-_ (Dillon 1944: 104) or a conflation of _*ande_ and _*eni_ (Dillon 1944: 107), whatever _*eni_ actually stands for.


----------



## ryba

Gavril said:


> There are examples of lenition with _an_- where the prefix has a clearly negative meaning: e.g. Scots Gaelic _ain_*fh*_ios _"ignorance" < _fios _"knowledge". I don't know the historical explanation of these different outcomes.


 
Dillon at one point (1944: 102) contemplates considering (modern Irish) _ainfios_ to be the “etymological” form of the word, unlike the “re-formation _*ain-fhios_”, and he follows to mention that the negative prefix under the form of _an-_ originated precisely before _w_- (and _m-_) (Dillon 1944: 94, 102).

But… I must admit there are a couple of things here I don’t really get. Only word-initial _w-_ becomes _f-_, right? The above mentioned rule says that, when PIE _*n__̥-_ is added to a lexeme beginning with _w-_, the negative prefix takes the form of (Proto-Celtic > Old Irish, I presume) _an-_, and the initial (PIE > PC, I presume) _w-_ becomes a “spirant b” (Dillon 1944: 94), which must refer to Old Irish /ß/. Thus, PIE _*n__̥__-wid-_ gives (OI) _ainb_ ‘ignorant’ (Dillon 1944: 94). Phonemically, /anʲß/, right? Then, it looks like it’s only natural for ‘ignorance’ (PC _*an-_ + _*wissu-_) to become modern Irish _ainbhios_ (as it, apparently, does), while Proto-Celtic _*wissu-_ alone gives OI _fis_ > modern _fios_, with initial _f-_. Now, how does that make ‹ainfios› the “etymological” spelling? Call it hypercorrect or analogical, but it’s not really etymological. I suppose Dillon did realize the weakness of that point, as he follows to mention there being instances of both _ænə_ and _ænvəs_ in _Die araner Mundart _(1944: 102). Now, the form underlying the latter must be a _bh-_form, while the form underlying the former might be… a _fh_-form. Does that mean there is an attested Irish counterpart for the Scottish Gaelic _ainfhios_?

Be that as it may, it looks like the _f_ in _ainf_(_h_)_ios_ would have to be due to a re-analysis of the word as _ain-_ + _fios_ (or, in other words, coining the word anew in a later period). As far as _f_ > _fh_ is concerned, well, Dillon (1944: 95) finds it probable that, unlike the _an-_ ocurring in the environments where it originated (i.e. before PC _w-_ and _m-_), “analogical _an-_ always caused lenition where possible unless it caused nasalization”. Even if it were not _always_ so, a generalization of lenition after _an-_ would fit quite neatly into the theory that _ainfhios_ is just a relatively late coinage (stemming from sometime after the Primitive Irish period). The question is, how late might it be? Given that:



Scottish Gaelic seems to distinguish between _ana-_ (‘negation’ -› no lenition) and _ana-_ (‘intensifier’ -› lenition) (see Scottish Gaelic: ana-bhlasta), 
Negative or pejorative _an-_ is no longer productive in modern Irish (Dillon 101-102). 
 
Dillon does mention “_amfesach_ (beside _anfiss_, _ainbhfios_)” when talking about the earlier formations (1944: 95), whatever timing or periodization he has in mind (is_ anfiss_ OI and _ainbhfios_ modern Irish?). Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for _ainbhios _mentions an alt. form _ainbhfios_,  which (in my view) might as well be motivated by the false-etymological  assumption that there must have been eclipsis operating, an assumption  made in an attempt to (orthographically) re-associate _ainbhios_ with _fios_. OK then, _ainbhfios_ *could* effectively be a real case of eclipsis, the spelling ‹ainbhfios› not being at all spurious. But, in order to establish that, we'd have to take a closer look at the corpus evidence. Anyhow, it looks like we're dealing with two or three sideforms with two or three different outcomes (_ainbhios_, _ainbhfios_, _ainf__h__ios_), doesn't it? At least, the fact that SG has _ainfhios _does imply that there *must* have existed an _f-_form_, _which had remained unaffected by nasalization.



Gavril said:


> In Welsh, the corresponding prefix _*an*_- causes lenition in some cases (_anferth _< _berth_; see below), but more commonly it causes nasal mutation: _anghofio_ "forget" < _an_- + _cofio_ "remember".


 
Dillon (1944: 95) says that [t]here is evidence which suggests that nasalization was regular in the early period, and lenition later, _v. inf._ _ancretem_, _anc__é__l_ (_aingc__é__l_) beside later _anchretem_.”

It is a pattern reminiscent of the situation in Welsh, isn’t it?

Would _anwybodaeth_ (cf. _gwybodaeth_) then qualify as one of those older words where _an-_ is non-mutating?  (_gwybod_ < MW _gwybot_; originally a compound of _bod_ ‘to be’ with an adjective derived from PC _*wid-_, from PIE _*weyd-_ ‘to know’.)


----------



## Gavril

ryba said:


> But… I must admit there are a couple of things here I don’t really get. Only word-initial _w-_ becomes _f-_, right?



Yes, I think that in Goidelic (Irish/Scottish), -_w_- is lost between vowels (compare Old Irish _toí_ "yours" vs. Welsh _tau_ < *_te*w*e_-), and disappears or becomes -_b_- [ß] after a consonant (Old Ir. _ser*b*_ "bitter" : Welsh _chwer*w*_).



> Be that as it may, it looks like the _f_ in _ainf_(_h_)_ios_ would have to be due to a re-analysis of the word as _ain-_ + _fios_ (or, in other words, coining the word anew in a later period). As far as _f_ > _fh_ is concerned, well, Dillon (1944: 95) finds it probable that, unlike the _an-_ ocurring in the environments where it originated (i.e. before PC _w-_ and _m-_), “analogical _an-_ always caused lenition where possible unless it caused nasalization”. Even if it were not _always_ so, a generalization of lenition after _an-_ would fit quite neatly into the theory that _ainfhios_  is just a relatively late coinage (stemming from sometime after the  Primitive Irish period). The question is, how late might it be? Given  that:
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Gaelic seems to distinguish between _ana-_ (‘negation’ -› no lenition) and _ana-_ (‘intensifier’ -› lenition) (see Scottish Gaelic: ana-bhlasta),
> Negative or pejorative _an-_ is no longer productive in modern Irish (Dillon 101-102).


 Are we sure that this is an absolute rule in Scottish Gaelic,  or is it just the dominant pattern? Regardless, contact between Irish  and Scottish Gaelic dialects might explain some of the unexpected  lenition after _an_-.



> Dillon (1944: 95) says that [t]here is evidence which  suggests that nasalization was regular in the early period, and lenition  later, _v. inf._ _ancretem_, _anc__é__l_ (_aingc__é__l_) beside later _anchretem_.”
> 
> It is a pattern reminiscent of the situation in Welsh, isn’t it?
> 
> Would _anwybodaeth_ (cf. _gwybodaeth_) then qualify as one of those older words where _an-_ is non-mutating?



_anwybodaeth_ shows lenition of _gw_- to _w_- rather than nasalization, but nasalization now seems to be the normal outcome of _an_- plus a consonant in Welsh. For example, I would expect _an_- + the adjective _tawel_ "quiet" to give _anhawel_ (_t_ nasalized to _nh_) rather than *_andawel _(_t_ lenited to _d_). Given the many examples of lenition after _an_- in Welsh, there may once have been more "competition" between nasalization and lenition as outcomes of this combination, but nasalization is probably the older pattern (in both British Celtic and Goidelic).


----------



## ryba

Thanks a ton, Gavril!





Gavril said:


> _anwybodaeth_ shows lenition of _gw_- to _w_- rather than nasalization, but nasalization now seems to be the normal outcome of _an_- plus a consonant in Welsh. For example, I would expect _an_- + the adjective _tawel_ "quiet" to give _anhawel_ (_t_ nasalized to _nh_) rather than *_andawel _(_t_ lenited to _d_). Given the many examples of lenition after _an_- in Welsh, there may once have been more "competition" between nasalization and lenition as outcomes of this combination, but nasalization is probably the older pattern (in both British Celtic and Goidelic).


Oh, I mean, I was thinking the prefixed form was so old that it retained the PC value of _w-_. Dillon (1944: 94-95) says that (_*n__̥_ +) _w-_ and _m-_ were the contexts where the _an-_form of the prefix originated, which made me think that _anwybodaeth_ might not be a prefixed and lenited form of _gwybodaeth_ (where _g-_ disappears in the soft form, whereby _gw-_ (_gw__̯_) becomes _w-_ (_w__̯_)) but rather a prefixed (and therefore) conservative form, stemming from a period before Brythonic initial /w/ > /gw/. The outcome being identical.  Does that make any sense?

Is it correct to say that the form underlying IG _ainbhios _(< PC _*an-_ + _*wissu-_) didn't undergo mutation, unlike the form(s) underlying the (putative?) IG _ainbhfios_ which (should the spelling be etymologically correct) did nasalize and _ainfhios_ which did lenite? I mean, there is that PC w > OI ß thing… but it's a sound law of a different nature, isn't it?


----------



## Gavril

ryba said:


> Thanks a ton, Gavril!
> Oh, I mean, I was thinking the prefixed form was so old that it retained the PC value of _w-_. Dillon (1944: 94-95) says that (_*n__̥_ +) _w-_ and _m-_ were the contexts where the _an-_form of the prefix originated, which made me think that _anwybodaeth_ might not be a prefixed and lenited form of _gwybodaeth_ (where _g-_ disappears in the soft form, whereby _gw-_ (_gw__̯_) becomes _w-_ (_w__̯_))  but rather a prefixed (and therefore) conservative form, stemming from a  period before Brythonic initial /w/ > /gw/. The outcome being  identical.  Does that make any sense?



Yes, I see what you mean. If _anwybodaeth _were an old compound (rather than a newer combination of _an-_ + _gwybodaeth_),  perhaps it would show further syllable reduction, or the vowels might  be slightly different, but I don't know enough to be sure of this. For example, _annodd_ "difficult" (based on _an_ + _hawdd_ "easy") would probably be something like *_anhodd_, perhaps even *_anhawdd_, if it had been formed more recently.



> Is it correct to say that the form underlying IG _ainbhios _(< PC _*an-_ + _*wissu-_) didn't undergo mutation, unlike the form(s) underlying the (putative?) IG _ainbhfios_ which (should the spelling be etymologically correct) did nasalize and _ainfhios_ which did lenite?



My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the -bh- of _ainbhios _and the -bhf- of _ainbhfios _are pronounced the same way, and reflect the same sound change of *_w_ > _*ɸ_ > (after a nasal) _ß_. The only difference is that _ainbhfios_ would have been created after  this sound change initially operated and spread through the vocabulary  (and therefore after this sound change had become part of a regular  morphological/syntactic process).


----------



## ryba

Thanks again, Gavril!!!

_Ainbh-_ and _ainbhf-_ are pronounced the same way. In _ainbhfios _and _ainbhfios_ it's a /vʲ/ [vʲ ~ βʲ] but, in the discussion of the older phonemes and sounds, I am going to leave the indication of palatalization (vs. velarization) out.

My understanding is that what we know as _ainbh- _came to be while the initial sound of the lexeme (< PIE *_w-_) still was something along the lines of [*w ~ β̞ ~ β]. That would turn the spelling (‹b› > ‹ḃ› >) ‹bh› into evidence for a conditioned merger of (a reflex of) PC *_w_ with Irish lenited _b_. In other words, it happened to sound like a lenited _b_ without being it etymologically, a detail which turned out to be no obstacle for it being spelled as if it were. And there never was any *_ɸ_- or _f-_ involved here, the presence of the prefix prevented it from ever appearing_._ Now, when did that prefixation exactly take place? Myles Dillon goes as far as to postulate a pre-Celtic _*n__̥__-wid-_ (> OI _ainb_ ‘ignorant’) (Dillon 1944: 94), which looks like PIE. Formally plausible, but I wouldn't be sure if it should be taken literally (as a "real" PIE or even PC form reconstructable for more than one language) or rather as a projection based on the reconstruction of the individual morphemes.

In contrast, _ainbhf-_ would have to be a form created only after initial (_*w-_ >) _*β_- > *_ɸ_- (> _f-_). The _f-_ subsequently nasalized, becoming phonologically identical to lenited _b_, except, for etymological reasons, it's spelled ‹bhf›. So, here we do have an_ f_-form, as (as the spelling suggests) the prefix _an-_ has to be attached to an _f_-form to produce _ainbhf-_.

Finally, _ainfh-_, just like _ainbhf-_, has got to be based on a lexeme with initial _f-_ (like, for example, OI _an-_ + OI _fis_).

Schematically, the fate of the three would be:

1) PIE *_w_ > PC *_w _> OI (here, with all certainty, non-initial and non-intervocalic) -_β_- > IG -_bh-_ (/vʲ/)
2) PIE *w > PC *_w_ > OI (initial)_ f-_ > IG (no longer initial + eclipsis) -_bhf- _(/vʲ/)
3) PIE *_w_ > PC *_w_ > OI (initial)_ f-_ > SG (no longer initial + lenition) -_fh-_ (not pronounced at all)

Now, while it would take a thorough analysis of the corpus evidence to prove that both (1) and (2) really ocurred, the mere existence of _ainfhios_ requires there having ocurred a later prefixation of _fis_ ~ _fios_ with_ an-_.


----------



## Gavril

ryba said:


> My understanding is that what we know as _ainbh- _came to be while the initial sound of the lexeme (< PIE *_w-_)  still was something along the lines of [*w ~ β̞ ~ β]. That would turn  the spelling (‹b› > ‹ḃ› >) ‹bh› into evidence for a conditioned  merger of (a reflex of) PC *_w_ with Irish lenited _b_. In other words, it happened to sound like a lenited _b_ without being it etymologically, a detail which turned out to be no obstacle for it being spelled as if it were.



OK, I see. Is it generally agreed upon that *_w_ became Irish _f_ via the steps *_w_ > *_β_ > _*ɸ > f?_ Could it not also have been *_w_ > *ʍ > _*ɸ > f_ (where [ʍ] is a voiceless labiovelar along the lines of English _wh_-)?

(Of course, it could be difficult to determine whether *_w_ went through all of these steps in all environments, and therefore whether *-_nw_- ever passed through the stage of *-_nɸ-_.)


----------



## ryba

Gavril said:


> OK, I see. Is it generally agreed upon that *_w_ became Irish _f_ via the steps *_w_ > *_β_ > _*ɸ > f?_ Could it not also have been *_w_ > *ʍ > _*ɸ > f_ (where [ʍ] is a voiceless labiovelar along the lines of English _wh_-)?



Many different phonetic paths of development are possible here but, on the phonemic level, it's very tempting to assume that there was a _β-_stage there, as it seems easier for a sonorant to devoice once it has acquired some characteristics of an obstruent; in this case, (some) friction /β̞ > β/ (from approximant to fricative). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it's statistically more likely for you to devoice once your voicedness is already somewhat crippled (considering the most voiced things are vowels and the least voiced are aspirated stops, along a scale).

 It looks like it's generally accepted (sorry, I'm using Wiki here) that all those PC *_w_ that hadn't been lost became *_β _(also labeled *_w_), which by OI times split into:

 /*ɸ- > f-/ (initially but also after lenited *_s_ /h/, as in the lenited _phïur_ < PC *_swesōr_, cf. unlenited _sïur_) 
and /β/ proper ("after lenited voiced sounds" => merging with lenited _b_, as in OI _tarb_ < PC _*tarwos_ or _fedb_ /fʲeðβ/< PC *_widwā_). 
 
In the Ogham inscriptions, the initial variant (as in _VENDUBARI_ ᚃᚓᚅᚇᚒᚁᚐᚏᚔ, equivalent to the OI name _Findbarr_) was written with the same grapheme ‹ᚃ› (fearn) as the non-initial one (as in _AVI_ ᚐᚃᚔ > OI _úa_). Now, on the allophonic level, who knows?

The fate of the OI lenited form of PC *_swesōr_, where /h/ causes the reflex of PC *_w_ to devoice in the syllable onset, can't be much different from the story behind the "_whine_-_fine_ merger" (Wh-labiodentalization), which is a phenomenon attributed to Gaelic substrate influence and found (among others?) in Doric Scots.

EDIT: Changing ‹fïur› to ‹phïur›, as "it appears that the voiceless fricative _f-_ had not merged with the reflex _ph_ of *_hw_ from lenited *_sw_ in Old Irish" (Kortlandt 2007:62).



Gavril said:


> (Of course, it could be difficult to determine whether *_w_ went through all of these steps in all environments, and therefore whether *-_nw_- ever passed through the stage of *-_nɸ-_.)



Oh, I can't see why it would pass through such a stage, as the vicinity of a nasal (to the left) and a vowel (to the right) doesn't look like an environment for devoicing.


----------



## Gavril

ryba said:


> Many different phonetic paths of development are possible here but, on the phonemic level, it's very tempting to assume that there was a _β-_stage there, as it seems easier for a sonorant to devoice once it has acquired some characteristics of an obstruent; in this case, (some) friction /β̞ > β/ (from approximant to fricative). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it's statistically more likely for you to devoice once your voicedness is already somewhat crippled (considering the most voiced things are vowels and the least voiced are aspirated stops, along a scale).



That might be true. There are many examples of [w] becoming other voiced sounds such as [v], [β], [g] and [gw], but in Irish there was a general devoicing to [ɸ], and without knowing about other similar cases (I would have to read up more), I don't have a good picture of how this devoicing normally happens.


 In Dutch, *_w_ developed to [ʋ] (labiodental approximant), which it seems could easily develop to [f] (I have sometimes perceived this Dutch sound as [f] myself), but that is not the same outcome as [ɸ] (the Irish sound), and in any case I don't know what steps occurred between *w and modern Dutch [ʋ].


----------



## ryba

My thoughts exactly! I mean the sequence I'm "used to" (although my train of thought might be somewhat biased) is something along the lines of *_w_ > *_β__̞__ > _*_ʋ_ > *_v_, with devoicing becoming more likely at the later stages. That's what apparently happened in Dutch, Belgian Dutch preserving the more conservative bilabial approximant /β̞/, which seems to be much more resistant to devoicing than the Netherlandic Dutch /ʋ/. Danish seems to be a good example, too, with its standard /v/ [v ~ ʋ] becoming devoiced after its (strongly aspirated) plosives, as in _kvinde_ [ˈkʰv̥-], Jutlandic Danish preserving the older /w/. That's also what apparently happened in Slavic, with early Proto-Slavic _*twāri_ > (later) Proto-Slavic *_tvar__ь_ becoming Polish _twarz_ [tf-], as opposed to the more conservative Czech _tvář_ [tʋ-] and Belarusian _tvar_ [tβ̞-] (‹твар›). Cf. Proto-Balto-Slavic *_duwō_ > Proto-Slavic *_d__ъ__va_ > Polish _dwa_ [dv-], Czech _dva_ [dʋ-], and Belarusian _dva_ [dβ̞-] (‹два›). I'm writing what I hear, as most sources transcribe the Czech and Belarusian sounds as [v], indiscriminately.

Maybe *_ɸ_ is assumed as a stage because *_f_ /ɸ/ (> modern Germanic _f_ /f/) is reconstructable for Proto-Germanic (word-final _b_ /b/ is spelled ‹f› in Gothic, which suggests that a devoiced [β] (medial realization of /b/) must have sounded like ‹f› to the ears of the scribe, so the pronunciation of ‹f› must have been _ɸ_-esque; the Old Norse spelling ‹eptir›, from Proto-Germanic < *_aftiri_ is more frequent than ‹eftir›, which also suggests an underlying *_ɸ_). Plus a voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/ (for some reason?) seems to be much more unstable than a voiced labiovelar fricative /v/, and thus more likely to "spontaneously" produce a voiceless labiovelar fricative/f/. A bias, then?

I've just googled up »"labiodental" irish« and found:

Kortlandt, Frederik Herman Henri. 2007. _Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language_. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

I'll have to digest it for a while and read again but what Kortlandt writes on pages 62-64 sounds quite convincing, and there's no absolute need for a _ɸ_-stage in the initial position in his theories.


----------



## ryba

Myles Dillon (1944) never mentions just how pan-Irish the spread of the particle _an-_ 'very' is (or historically was), but there are reasons to think it never was as successful in Ulster Irish as in Connacht (_an-_) and Munster (_ana-_).

Belfast-based Raidió Fáilte (in _Cúpla focal_ 2, 03:55-04:55):

_Tá sé iontach mór_ / _beag_ / _sean_ / _óg_ / _maith_ / _tinn_.
'He is very big / small / old / young / good / ill'.

The phrases featured in _Cúpla focal_ come from the coursebook _Buntús Cainte_, except they are slightly adapted (and pronounced the Ulster way). In this case, the original _Buntús Cainte_ phrases were:

_Tá sé an-mhór_ / _an-bheag_ / _an-sean_ / _an-óg_ / _an-mhaith_ / _an-tinn_.

And, according to the Irish Wikipedia article on Ulster Irish, _as pabhar_ is another possibility (_pabhar_: _tá sé as pabhar mór_ 'tá sé an-mhór, tá sé iontach mór').

According to Hugo from Daltaí Discussion Forums, "[_i_]_ontach_ is certainly the usual version in Ulster, but _an-_ is used too" (Review of Buntús Cainte through Actual Irish Dialects: Chapters 1-9).

Point being, the earliest attested intensive _an_(_a_)- apparently coming from the Modern Irish period (Dillon 1944: 99, 101) and the Irish dialect SG historically has had the most to do with not being particularly keen on this particular intensive, how the heck does Scottish Gaelic get its _an-mhòr_ at all?

As of today, _an-mhòr_ is the only word out of the Wiktionary list of Scottish Gaelic words prefixed with _an_- that semantically behaves like modern Irish words with the intensive particle _an_(_a_)-. The rest of the list fits very well into categories A-D outlined by Dillon (1944: 95-99) for the (now unproductive) Irish prefix. (I've only now realized that ).


----------

