# French : 'attacher'



## alba.r

Larousse says that French [attacher] derives from OldFrench *estachier* from a Germanic root 'stakka'. It's normal that a *prothetic* 'e' is prefixed to the root, (the same as in Spanish), but one would expect 'e' + 'stakka' to become => 'esta /k/ (qu) er'
1) can you say if the outcome 'esta*ch*ier' is normal or an exception? why does /k/ become /ch/?
2) why does 'es-t' change to 'at-t' ? Usually it is the Latin prefix 'ad' + t' that is *assimilated*: 'ad' + 't' => 'att'
is there a link or a book online where I can learn how and when 'estachier' evolved into ' attacher' ?
Thanks any partial answer or any link would be great.


----------



## sumelic

Coincidentally, there was an extensive and contentious discussion of this very issue recently on the English Stack Exchange site.


----------



## alba.r

What is your take?


----------



## fdb

You will find a better answer here:
http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/attacher

Key word: "avec chang. de préf."


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> You will find a better answer here:
> http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/attacher
> 
> Key word: "avec chang. de préf."


Indeed. The pair attacher/détacher makes it pretty clear that the word came under the influence of the semantically meaningful and to a certain extent even today productive prefixes _a(d/t)-_ and _de-_.


alba.r said:


> 2) why does /k/ become /ch/?


The explanation in fdb's link is that it is derived from a variant of the Germanic root with a lengthened /kk/ (cf. English _stick_, German_ Stecken_). That would explain the palatalization to [tʃ]>[ʃ] rather then to [ts]>[plain][s].[/plain]


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> I
> The explanation in fdb's link is that it is derived from a variant of the Germanic root with a lengthened /kk/ (cf. English _stick_, German_ Stecken_). That would explain the palatalization to [tʃ]>[ʃ] rather then to [ts]>[plain][s].[/plain]


That link is very helpful: so, from the root 'sta*kk*a' in early 12th c., the noun 'e+sta*ch*e' was formed, because long 'kk' becomes 'ch' in French 
Then nexth century the verb 'estachier' was formed with the suffix 'ier', right? Now what determines the choice of 'ier'? are all verbs ending in 'ier' at the time? 
But the most strange feature is 'est' becoming 'att', souldn't the normal oucome be the dropping of 's', as in 'de- estachier' => 'dètacher'?

Your are really kind and helpful


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> But the most strange feature is 'est' becoming 'att', souldn't the normal oucome be the dropping of 's', as in 'de- estachier' => 'dètacher'?


It is actually _d*é*tacher_ and not _d*è*tacher _which isn't completely unimportant.

The tendency to lose /s/ in front of other consonants with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel started already in late Old French. Compare Latin _status_ > VL _estato_ > OF _estat_, ModF _état_ (btw: Italian lost the _e_ again and _estato_ became _stato_). So the /s/ in _estachier_ was probably already lost or almost mute in spoken language. In a second step then the initial _e_ was probably replaced by the semantically "logical" prefix _ad-_ ("avec chang. de préf."): _ad-tachier = attachier > attacher_. Then _détacher _is not a phonological development but a logical one with _dé- _being the semantic opposite of _a(d)-_.


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> (btw: *Italian lost the e* again and _estato_ became _stato_)..


Italian never had the form 'estato', unlike French and Spanish the *prothetic* vowel was joined to the article 'un' + 'o' = uno, therefore it can have hundreds of words beginning with_ 's' impurum.

_so, to recap:
stakka , estache, estachier, *e*-tachier => *ad*- tachier, at-tachier, attacher  is this correct or the -ier ending changed earlier to -er?
Is it possible to trace a *rough date* when estachier is replaced by attachier?, what is the first recorded example, is there national corpus online?

As to the sounds (I am interested in _phonetics_) is it normal that short /k/ becomes /k/ (spelt *qu*) and /k:/ is palatalized to 'esta *ch* ier'?


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> Italian never had the form 'estato', unlike French and Spanish the *prothetic* vowel was joined to the article 'un' + 'o' = uno, therefore it can have hundreds of words beginning with_ 's' impurum._


Many people actually think the prosthetic _e_ in front of initial _s+_stop was a universal feature of VL but didn't prevail in Italian Proto-Romance. But well, it is not important for the discussion here and I won't insist. The _-o_ in _uno_ is not prosthetic but derived from Latin _unum_ (as accusative of _unus_). The development into_ uno_ is completely regular.


alba.r said:


> Is it possible to trace a *rough date* when estachier is replaced by attachier?, what is the first recorded example, is there national corpus online?


Please refer to the link in fdb's post. It is full of dated attestations.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> The explanation in fdb's link is that it is derived from a variant of the Germanic root with a lengthened /kk/ (cf. English _stick_, German_ Stecken_).  That would explain the palatalization to [tʃ]>[ʃ] rather then to [ts]>[plain][s].[/plain]


A simple [k] would not have produced [ts] before  [a]. It would have become yod (cf. _pacare_ > _payer_).


alba.r said:


> Then nexth century the verb 'estachier' was formed with the suffix 'ier', right? Now what determines the choice of 'ier'?


The _ie_ is the result of Bartsch's Law.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> A simple [k] would not have produced [ts] before  [a]. It would have become yod (cf. _pacare_ > _payer_).


Right. Thank you.


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> _e_ in front of initial _s+_stop was a universal feature ... The _-o_ in _uno_ is not prosthetic but* derived from Latin unum *(as accusative of _unus_). The development into_ uno_ is completely regular.
> .


I was grossly summarizing to strike the difference, to be precise i'ts the other way round: [uno] derived from  '_unus_' , and 'un' is an elided form ( in some contexts). But what I meant is that, having the equivalent of the French prothetic 'e',  this device was unnecessary and we retained the original Classical Latin form : 'st'


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> Please refer to the link in fdb's post. It is full of dated attestations.


I read the link but in the same 1100 quote "a 1100 « lier à qqc. » (Chanson de Roland, éd. Bédier, 3737 : A un " *est*ache l'unt* at*achet cil serf"*).* "there are both 'es- tacher' and 'a- tacher',


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> The _ie_ is the result of Bartsch's Law.



So, 'estache' would give => 'estach*ie*r'  and later this would evolve to 'estacher'.

But I have pointed out in my previous post that in 1100 (Chanson de Roland) we already find the form 'atach*e*r'  ,  how can we explain this?


----------



## CapnPrep

alba.r said:


> a 1100 « lier à qqc. » (Chanson de Roland, éd. Bédier, 3737 : A un'*estache* l'unt* atachet* cil serf). […]
> 
> am I getting it wrong? in the same 1100 quote there are both 'es-tacher' and 'a-tacher, a-tachier'


In that quote, _estache_ is a noun, and _atachet_ is a verb ("those serfs have *attached* him to a *stake*"). But yes, it is perfectly possible for there to be distinct forms with the same etymology and related meanings in use at the same time.


alba.r said:


> So, 'staka' would give => 'stayer'


_étayer_


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> . , it is perfectly possible for there to be distinct forms ... in use at the same time.
> 
> _4 ) étayer_



1) Is it plausible that one form was originated/preferred by _langue d'oc_ (atachier) and the other by _langue d'oil _(estachier)?
or viceversa?
that example was from  "Chanson de Roland" and this from "Roman de la Rose"

 B.− 1. xiies. « lier, unir à qqn (par un sentiment) » (Mém. de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 3esér., t. 7, p. 425 : Mis cuers deust bien estre o lui* atachiez* et si fermez Qu'altres n'en fust ja escoltez); 2. 1280 « appliquer, consacrer (son cœur, son esprit) » (*Roman de la Rose*, 5358, éd. Langlois, t. 2, p. 254
2) Are those *'-z'* forms imperative or variants of past participle? if so why. doesn't that mean :"my heart must be well-tied to him and .....also shut so that others can't listen?
It seems the infinitive = 'atachier', past participle = atachiet and what was atachiez?

3) are those text accessible at _gallica_?
--------
4) does the rule apply only to Germanic roots?
we do have 
attaccare /kk/ with long /k/ which does not give [tʃ]>[ʃ] but => /k/ 'attaquer'


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> That would explain the palatalization to [tʃ]>[ʃ] rather then to [ts]>[plain][s].[/plain]


1) Can you give me an example of this outcome?

2) Can you please tell me if at gallica it is possible to make a search  for a basic root as we do at _google_ with the asterisk 'atache*'?  It doesn't work there: 'atache*' , is it possible get in one screenshot all possible words: atache-r', 'atache-t', 'atache-z' etc 

conversely the search 'atacher' gives results with 'attacher', 'attache', 'attachés', but not of 'atacher'? and 'estachier' includes different roots such as 'esrachier' and 'escachier' . Even quotes do not work : "estachier"  gives also results 'esrachier'

Can you find when the occurence of 'estachier /estacher' was recorded in print?

can you also explain me why the search 'atachet' does not yield the 'Roman de la Rose?

Thanks for your precious help


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> 4) does the rule apply only to Germanic roots?
> we do have
> attaccare /kk/ with long /k/ which does not give [tʃ]>[ʃ] but => /k/ 'attaquer'


Italian underwent different sound shifts than French. In effect, _attacher _and _attaquer _are the same word, _attacher _inherited from Old French and _attaquer _loaned from Italian. Interestingly, the Italian word underwent a similar prefix change (_staccare > attaccare_).


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> Italian underwent different sound shifts than French. In effect, _attacher _and _attaquer _are the same word, _attacher _inherited from Old French and _attaquer _loaned from Italian. Interestingly, the Italian word underwent a similar prefix change (_staccare > attaccare_).


Actually the Italian change is in the opposite direction, which is rather odd.

T


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> Actually the Italian change is in the opposite direction, which is rather odd.


I am not quite sure what you mean. I can't see any "change in the opposite direction".


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure what you mean. I can't see any "change in the opposite direction".
> the Italian word underwent a similar prefix change (_staccare > attaccare_).


The French word changed from at- to des-, the Italian from s- to at-

The reason may be that the Italian loan took place at a later time when word were taken at their face value, do you agree?


Thanks


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> The French word changed from at- to des-, the Italian from s- to at-
> 
> The reason may be that the Italian loan took place at a later time when word were taken at their face value, do you agree?


You must have misunderstood something here. _Attacher _and _détacher _are different words. They both exist in modern French and mean exactly the opposite of each other. There is no changes from _at-_ to _dé-_. I meantioned _détacher_ only because if shows that the prosthetic vowel in _attacher_ must have been re-analysed as a prefix (because the prefixes _a-_ and _dé-_ are logical opposites).


----------



## Dib

alba.r said:


> B.− 1. xiies. « lier, unir à qqn (par un sentiment) » (Mém. de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 3esér., t. 7, p. 425 : Mis cuers deust bien estre o lui* atachiez* et si fermez Qu'altres n'en fust ja escoltez); 2. 1280 « appliquer, consacrer (son cœur, son esprit) » (*Roman de la Rose*, 5358, éd. Langlois, t. 2, p. 254
> 2) Are those *'-z'* forms imperative or variants of past participle? if so why. doesn't that mean :"my heart must be well-tied to him and .....also shut so that others can't listen?
> It seems the infinitive = 'atachier', past participle = atachiet and what was atachiez?



z=ts, where the -s is the masc. nom. sing. ending?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> No, he crossed it out himself later.


No, something apparently went wrong with those messages after the software change.
_Moderator note: Post repaired._



alba.r said:


> 1) Is it plausible that one form was originated/preferred by _langue d'oc_ (atachier) and the other by _langue d'oil _(estachier)?
> or viceversa?
> that example was from  "Chanson de Roland" and this from "Roman de la Rose"


Both of those are Oïl texts. Oc varieties do not generally show _k_ > _ch _palatalization before _a_.


alba.r said:


> B.− 1. xiies. « lier, unir à qqn (par un sentiment) » (Mém. de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 3esér., t. 7, p. 425 : Mis cuers deust bien estre o lui* atachiez* et si fermez Qu'altres n'en fust ja escoltez); 2. 1280 « appliquer, consacrer (son cœur, son esprit) » (*Roman de la Rose*, 5358, éd. Langlois, t. 2, p. 254
> 2) Are those *'-z'* forms imperative or variants of past participle? if so why. doesn't that mean :"my heart must be well-tied to him and .....also shut so that others can't listen?
> It seems the infinitive = 'atachier', past participle = atachiet and what was atachiez?


That example is not from the _Roman de la Rose_, but from the _Roman de Troie_. The letter _z_ represents the sound _ts_, so _atach(i)ez _can be either a 2nd person plural form (still written with _-ez_ today) or a masculine passive participle (mod. Fr. _attaché_ or _attachés_). It is a participle here. The lines mean something like "My heart had to be so attached and fixed with him that no other was ever heard by it."


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> No, something apparently went wrong with those messages after the software change.
> 
> Both of those are Oïl texts. Oc varieties do not generally show _k_ > _ch _palatalization before _a_.
> That example is not from the _Roman de la Rose_, but from the _Roman de Troie_. The letter _z_ represents the sound _ts_, so _atach(i)ez _can be either a *2nd person plural form *(still written with _-ez_ today) or a masculine *passive participle* (mod. Fr. _attaché_ or _attachés_). It is a participle here. The lines mean something like "My heart had to be so attached and fixed with him that no other was ever heard by it."



So your post #10 is OK?, I was beginning to go round the bend! I believed it since my post might have been OT!

So the post at CNRTL has a mistake?

If it is a past participle, as it is most likely from the sense, ('si atachiez' means :'so/ surely bound', right?) why did we have 'atache* t*' before and now 'atachie *z*'?

Can you make a search at gallica showing the earlies and latest occurrence of 'estachier'?

Thanks


----------



## CapnPrep

alba.r said:


> So the post at CNRTL has a mistake?


They identified the published edition and left out the name of the poem. And they left out one word _si_ in the quotation.


alba.r said:


> If it is a past participle, as it is most likely from the sense, ('si atachiez' means :'so/ surely bound', right?) why did we have 'atache* t*' before and now 'atachie *z*'?


In the quote from _Roland_, _atachet_ is a past participle that agrees with the direct object _le_. In the example from _Troie_, _atachiez_ is a passive participle that agrees with the subject (_cuers_).


alba.r said:


> Can you find when the occurence of 'estachier /estacher' was recorded in print?


You don't really mean "in print", do you? 


alba.r said:


> Can you make a search at gallica showing the earlies and latest occurrence of 'estachier'?


I don't think so.


----------



## Logospreference-1

> TÂCHE, subst. fém.
> [...] Empr. au lat. médiév. _tasca, tascha_ (issu du lat. class. _taxare_, v. _taxer_) « redevance consistant en une part de fruits, souvent un onzième, que le tenancier doit au propriétaire pour des champs obtenus par la mise en valeur de terres vierges » 1028 (D. Roberti reg Fr., _Gall. Chr._2VIII instr. col. 295 ds Nierm.), lat. médiév. bien att. déjà dans le Midi de la France, 802, _tascas et decimas _(_Hist. de Lang._3, II pr. no. 15 col. 64 [Minervois], _ibid._) d'où l'a. prov. _tasca_ 1192 (_Arch. du Roy_, Toulouse, J. 322 ds Rayn.).





> TAXER, verbe trans.
> [...] Empr. au lat. _taxare_ « toucher souvent et fortement ; blâmer, reprendre, estimer, évaluer », lui-même empr. au gr. τ α σ σ ε ι ν « ranger, *fixer* » (pour l'hist. de _taxare_, v. en partic. Ern.-Meillet). [...]


----------



## CapnPrep

I guess that the previous poster is suggesting that _attacher_ is somehow related to _taxer_ and _tâche_, but one would need to submit more evidence before making such a (phonetically improbable) claim. For example, do we find medieval forms like_ ata*x*er_ or _ata*s*chier_? (According to Godefroy, we do not.)

I notice that the OED disagrees with the etymology discussed so far in this thread:


> < Old French _atachier_ (modern _attacher_), cognate with Italian _attaccare_ , Spanish _atacar_ ; < _à_ to, at + a radical which is found also in _détacher_ detach v., and is connected by Diez and Littré with the Genevese _tache_, Spanish _tacha_, Portuguese _tacha_, a round-headed nail, a tack n.1, q.v. Thus _lit._ ‘to tack to.’


For _tack_ (= OFr _tache_ "fibula" or "large nail", apparently distinct from mod Fr. _tache_ "stain", and obviously distinct from _tâche_ "task"), unfortunately "the etymological history is obscure". 

This derivation from the root _tache_ would not explain the older French form _estachier_.


----------



## sumelic

CapnPrep said:


> This derivation from the root _tache_ would not explain the older French form _estachier_.


It seems clear that if _attacher_ is derived from the same root as _tache_, then _estachier_ is not an older form of _attacher_, but a word with a distinct etymological origin. I see no problems with this; is there any evidence that _attacher_ and _estachier_ are related besides the phonological and semantic similarities?


----------



## fdb

CapnPrep said:


> I notice that the OED disagrees with the etymology discussed so far in this thread:



The entry in the online OED is reprinted from the first edition (1885) and "has not yet been fully updated". The Germanic etymology is now generally approved by Romanists (which does not, of course, mean that it is necessarily the last word on the topic).


----------



## alba.r

fdb said:


> The Germanic etymology is now *generally approved by Romanists *(which does not, of course, mean that it is necessarily the last word on the topic).


Is there  a reliable reference?

I haven't seen OED, but the latest SOED doesn't give a Latin or Italian origin, just says that it derives from ME 'attacher' which corresponds to Italian 'attaccare' and Spanish 'atacar', from OF 'estachier' that corresponds to Spanish 'estacar', and then refers to *stake* (stikken)


----------



## CapnPrep

alba.r said:


> Is there a reliable reference?


The TLF is already a reliable reference, along with the sources that it cites (Tobler-Lommatzsch, Wartburg).


----------



## alba.r

fdb said:


> The entry in the online OED is reprinted from the first edition (1885) and "has not yet been fully updated". The Germanic etymology is now generally approved by Romanists (which does not, of course, mean that it is necessarily the last word on the topic).


Thanks fdb,
you are French and live in UK, so speak English. You are the ideal person to whom one can ask:

1) - Do you feel any difference between your pronunciation of '_attacher_' and the British '_attach_'?
In my experience there is no great difference, if you agree that means that the first and original form of the spelling recorded in the 11th century 'atacher' is the true one, the most adherent to the actual pronunciation , and that the spelling was modified later to make it consistent with the Italian-Latin forms. If TLF is right and the first recorded form of 'att-' is in 1540, it surprisingly coincides with the appearance of the twin word 'attaquer' exactly in 1540. Can it be just a casual coincidence? But Godefroy (see below, p. 460) lists two occurrences long before that (in *1304*): 'a*tt*achent' and 'furent a*tt*achez'

2) who is the author of the "_Yearbooks of the reign of Edward the first"_, is it a translation from English by an OF writer? what does 'Rer brit. script.' mean?

3) You say TFL is reliable is it a private institution. Is it a State institution, like gallica?  In Spain and Italy the language authority is a State (funded) Institution of greatest reliability, Oxford is an undoubted authority, which is the most trusted French source, can you rate these:
TFL
Larousse
Academic

4) and what about Godefroy ? it doesn't record 'atacher' at all! and his quotation of Cholieres _'j*'at*tacheroie'_ actually reads 'j'*en*tacheroie' in the original print

5) does the asterisk *stakka means it is an _uncertain or a fictitious/guessed _word? if so, why 'taikns' here has no asterisk?

Can you answer all questions, even just saying: 'dunno'!


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> You say TFL is reliable is it a private institution. Is it a State institution, like gallica? In Spain and Italy the language authority is a State (funded) Institution of greatest reliability


Why would that be relevant? Why would a government institution be more reliable than a non-government institution? I really don't understand your question.


alba.r said:


> and what about Godefroy ? it doesn't record 'atacher' at all!


Godefroy does quote _estachier_.


alba.r said:


> does the asterisk *stakka means it is an _uncertain or a firctitious/guessed _word?


In means "unattested". The Low Frankish of the time of the Frankish conquest of Gaul wasn't a written language (with the exception of a handful of runic inscriptions). The oldest attested development stage of Low Frankish is Old Dutch.


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> I notice that the OED disagrees with the etymology discussed so far in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Old French _atachier_ (modern _attacher_), cognate with Italian _attaccare_ ,  connected by Diez and Littré with the Genevese _tache_, Thus _lit._ ‘to tack to.’
> 
> 
> 
> For _tack_ (= OFr _tache_ "fibula" or "large nail", apparently distinct from mod Fr. _tache_ "stain", and obviously distinct from _tâche_ "task"), unfortunately "the etymological history is obscure".
> This derivation from the root _tache_* would not explain *the older French form _estachier_.
Click to expand...

CapnPrep, you are bilingual, too, can you answer my question if

1) - you spot a difference between the French and the English pronunciation? if you don't, that would explain why the first written form was the more realistic [e- x a- =>] _a*t*acher
2) - _the guess at ELU-SE is that there were 2 different derivations, one from _estache <= *_stakka and another (Diez , but his ultimate origin was *tacco* and not tacca) from_ tache <= _*takka <= taikns (Wartburg) and the first 'silently died'. This was my original question, nobody answered yet, what is your take: can you exclude that?
3) - if you have access to Wartburg, can you transcribe his full justification of his guess, (if it's larger than the one reported at TLF)?


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> you spot a difference between the French and the English pronunciation? if you don't, that would explain why the first written form was the more realistic [e- x a- =>] _a*t*acher_


A modern speaker's intuition isn't relevant here. Neither French nor English distinguish between long and short consonants any more.


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> A modern speaker's intuition isn't relevant here. Neither French nor English distinguish between long and short consonants* any more*.


That's what it is all about, did OF speakers distinguish between /t:/ and /t/?, if they didn't they would write as they heard 'atacher' and then later, considering, 'at- + t' modify the spelling to 'attacher'.
What do you make of the suggestion that there were two different derivations?


----------



## CapnPrep

alba.r said:


> 3) - if you have access to Wartburg, can you transcribe his full justification of his guess, (if it's larger than the one reported at TLF)?


Much too long. You can read it yourself: *stakka, taikns, _tache_ (clou).


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> That's what it is all about, did OF speakers distinguish between /t:/ and /t/?, if they didn't they would write as they heard 'atacher' and then later, considering, 'at- + t' modify the spelling to 'attacher'.
> What do you make of the suggestion that there were two different derivations?


The distinction between /t:/ and /t/ must have been lost already in early Old French. The variation can well be merely orthographic even in the earliest attestations.


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> Much too long. You can read it yourself: *stakka, taikns, _tache_ (clou).


Thanks Cap'n, that link is precious!


----------



## alba.r

berndf said:


> The distinction between /t:/ and /t/ must have been lost already in early Old French. The variation can well be merely orthographic even in the earliest attestations.


That would explain why the first form had a single 't'. You say 'lost', why? do you have info that at some earlier stage  people in Gallia could distinguish _phonemic_ double consonants?
Are you aware of any _minimal pairs_?


----------



## berndf

alba.r said:


> You say 'lost', why


Well, Latin had phonemic double consonants and Old French didn't. So, on the way from Latin to Old French it must have been lost at some point.



alba.r said:


> Are you aware of any _minimal pairs_?


How could I, if it happened in unattested times. To assess the timing of this loss, we can only infer indirectly, e.g.: If it matters in Frankish loans, as the "ch" indicates, this loss must have happened some time after the Frankish conquest.


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> Much too long. You can read it yourself: *stakka, taikns, _tache_ (clou).


Your link is really a gold mine, thanks again, does it list only his own proposals? why can't I find there other 'unattested' forms or even attested forms?

Can we say that Wartburg is for Romance Philology what Einstein for physics? Is he still an undiscussed authority? Has anyone taken his place to day as the most authoritative scholar?


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> 1) I notice that the OED* disagrees* with the etymology discussed so far in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Old French _atachier_ (modern _attacher_), cognate with Italian _attaccare_ , Spanish _atacar_ ; < _à_ to, at + a radical which is found also in_détacher_ detach v., and is connected by Diez and Littré with the Genevese _tache_, Spanish _tacha_, Portuguese _tacha_, a round-headed nail, a tack n.1, q.v. Thus _lit._ ‘to tack to.’
> 
> 
> 
> 2) For _tack_ (= OFr _tache_ "fibula" or "large nail", apparently distinct from mod Fr. _tache_ "stain", unfortunately "the etymological history is obscure".
> 
> 3)This *derivation from the root*_ 'tache'_ would not explain the older French form _estachier_.
Click to expand...

1) The updated etymology by Oxford relates '_attach_' to the same base of  '*stake*' and '*stick*' the Old High German _sticken

2) _The  origin of  *'tack*' is a supposed 'unrecorded variant of French '_teche_', (and its relation with 'attach', 'attack' is uncertain) which is also the origin of '*tache*' = stain

3) Sure, it wouldn't. But why do you exclude that *stakka gave 'estach_e[r]' and *takka (ad + tacher) gave 'a[t]tacher'? It is phonetically coherent, Bartsch' law is respected, it is exactly the same process. Two different verbs derived from two different roots, one of which prevailed on the other.
Warburg's guess *takka, taikns has been corrected to VL *tagicare 'tachier'



			Cette hyp. d'un empr. au got., que la complexité phonét. rend difficile à admettre, se heurte essentiellement à des difficultés sém.: on ne voit pas très bien comment cet étymon ayant le seul sens de « signe » a pu donner, dans les différentes lang. rom., des sens aussi variés que ceux de « souillure », « marque sur la peau », « qualité (bonne ou mauvaise) ». D'apr. U. Joppich-Hagemann Untersuchungen zu Wortfamilien der Romania germanica, Bonn, 1973, pp. 127-145; v. aussi le cr. qui en a été fait par M. Pfister ds Arch. St. n. Spr. t. 218, no1, p. 199) tachier, mot de base de la famille, serait à rattacher à un lat. vulg. *tagicare, issu de tangere « toucher » qui a pris, dès le lat. class., sous l'infl. de tingere (v. infra), le sens de « toucher en mouillant, éclabousser, barbouiller, colorer », tandis que la var. techier remonterait à un lat. vulg. *tigicare, issu de tingere « teindre ». Tache serait donc un déverbal de tacher.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## CapnPrep

alba.r said:


> But why do you exclude that *stakka gave 'estach_e[r]' and *takka (ad + tacher) gave 'a[t]tacher'? It is phonetically coherent, Bartsch' law is respected, it is exactly the same process. Two different verbs derived from two different roots, one of which prevailed on the other._


I don't exclude that, but I also don't exclude the prefix substitution idea. And both explanations can be correct at the same time! 

I am not sure you understand exactly what Bartsch's law is… Neither of the French forms you just cited shows the effect of Bartsch's law. I only brought it up in this thread because at some point you were asking about the _-*i*er_/_-*i*et(s)_ endings. But this has absolutely no bearing on your main question, whether the root starts with _st-_ or _t-_ (or both, or neither).


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> I am not sure you understand exactly what Bartsch's law is… Neither .


You are right, I mixed it up, I meant 'kk' /k:/ giving 'ch' *stakka, *taikka => 'ch'

As to_ *taikka, taikns => tache_[r] , if it is odd that it produced different meanings
_



			on ne voit pas très bien comment cet étymon ayant le seul sens de « signe » a pu donner, dans les différentes lang. rom., des sens aussi variés que ceux de « souillure », « marque sur la peau », « qualité (bonne ou mauvaise) »
		
Click to expand...

_it seems far-fetched to link it to '_attacher_' or to 'attaccare' or,  even worse, to 'staccare' as Treccani does. Probably they haven't updated the entry, and stick to Wartburg. I can't see, as an Italian, how adding 's' to 'stain' you can get 'detach' 'separate'. 

Can you tell me why taikns has no asterisk? is it attested as Germanic base? also, how did you get that entry? I tried a search with *taikka, taikka, taikns, *taikns but got no result.


----------



## CapnPrep

alba.r said:


> Can you tell me why taikns has no asterisk? is it attested as Germanic base?


Yes, _taikns_ is attested in Gothic.


----------



## alba.r

CapnPrep said:


> Yes, _taikns_ is attested in* Gothic*.


Thanks for your patience, can you explain why here the consider gothic 'takko' and *taikns gets an asterisk and is regarded as Germanic?, while the same entry (tache) here the quote again taikns?


----------

