(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of ""Duecho" Once More"

STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



DUECHO ONCE MORE 

In the course of a review of Hanssen, Spanische Grammatik, just 
published in The Romanic Review II 331, Mr. Lang devotes more 
than one page (334-35) to my etymology of Duecho (Mod. Phil. VII 
['09] 53). Although the tone in which his remarks are made is not 
warranted by the circumstances, I shall concern myself here wholly 
with questions of fact. 

In § 2 (p. 54) of my article I make the following statement: 
"Lang, ZrP. XXXII p. 394, refers [in the body of an article] 1 for 
doito de etc. to O.Sp. duecho and Prov. duch, [and in a footnote (3) 
appended to duecho] 1 to Lanchetas (who deserves no mention), 2 to 
Menendez Pidal, Manual § 122, 2 ducho<ductu, and to ZrP. XIX 
p. 535. Carolina Michaelis de Vasconcellos, at the latter place, says: 
' Ob [doito] auf doctus oder ductus zuruckzufiihren ist, steht ubrigens 
noch nicht fest.' In a note appended to this statement she seems 
to favor ductus." 

Mr. Lang (p. 334) says: "Prof. Pietsch pieced the first two of 
these notes [i.e. ZrP XXXII 394 notes 3 3 and 4] 1 and a shred of the 
passage to which they are appended together, and inserted this patch- 
work in his article as one of 'the previous attempts to settle the ety- 
mology of these forms ' (i.e. ducho, duecho)." It ought to be clear to 
Mr. Lang that a paragraph which specifically connects Du Cange- 
Carpentier and Foerster with the discussion of Fr. duit, Levy with Pr. 
dock . . . . , Cornu and Lang with Port, adoito and doito, does not confine 
itself to a consideration of the forms ducho, duecho as Mr. Lang 
strangely assumes. And why I should be charged with piecing 
together two notes and a shred of the passage to which they are 
appended, when the attachment of the notes to the passage in 
question is the work of Mr. Lang himself, I do not understand. 
Furthermore, if Mr. Lang had read my statements with care, he 
would have seen that I do not in any part of my article suggest that 
he had discussed the origin of the Sp. forms ducho, duecho, nor do I 

1 Words in brackets are inserted by me. 3 1 use only note 3 ; cf. supra. 
s "inde irae et lacrimae. " 
417] 1 [Modern Philology, January, 1912 



2 K. PlETSCH 

credit to him any of "the previous attempts to settle the etymology 
of these forms." I specifically say that he "refers" to others. That 
in the body of his text Mr. Lang was concerned with the meaning of 
doito is true; but footnote 3 reads as follows: 

"Lanchetas, s.v.; Pidal, Gram. Hist? § 122, 2 ducho (lat. ductus). 
Vgl. zur Etymologie auch Zeitschrift 19, 535, Anm. 5." 1 

I submit that nothing in this note indicated that the three lines 
devoted by Lanchetas to the etymology (which called forth my dis- 
paraging remark in regard to Lanchetas) were excluded from Mr. 
Lang's reference, and that the specific indication of the discussion of 
the etymology by Menendez Pidal and the phrase "zur Etymologie 
auch " in the reference to ZrP XIX suggested that these lines, no less 
than the single line devoted by Lanchetas to the meaning, were con- 
templated in Mr. Lang's reference. It is clear then that I did not 
cite Mr. Lang as among those attempting to settle the etymology of 
any form of duecho or its congeners and that I was entirely accurate 
in the language I used concerning his reference to others. 

1 have already spoken of the curious misinterpretation by which 
Mr. Lang supposes that the only forms discussed by me are Sp. 
ducho, duecho. Having made this misinterpretation, it is perhaps not 
strange, but hardly fair, that he should substitute these Sp. forms for 
my own expression "these forms" (referring of course, as the context 
clearly shows, not only to the Sp. words but to cognate words 
in the other Romance languages). And it is particularly unfair in 
view of the use made of the substitution. Mr. Lang says: "In a 
similar way Foerster, Rom. Stud. Ill p. 181 on O.Fr. duit [I say 
"Fr. duit"; cf. infra], 2 Levy, SW. s.v. duire [I say "under Dozer, . . . . 
under Duire"; cf. infra], 2 etc., Cornu, Grundriss I, 932, a propos of 
Port, adoito, are laid under contribution for 'previous attempts to 
settle the etymology of ducho, duecho.'" Anyone who reads my 
article, § 2, p. 54, will see that I was entirely explicit in citing 
Foerster, Levy, Cornu, and Lang for precisely the forms dealt with 

i It Is interesting to see how this note is rendered in The Romanic Review 334 ; 
"note 3 cites Lanchetas s.v. for the signification of duecho (and as his reference to Berceo 
is correct, he deserved no disparaging remark), Menendez Pidal [Mr. Lang accepts my 
silent correction of "Pidal" to "Menendez Pidal"), Manual % 122, 2 for ducho [yet this 
word does not occur at all in the body of the article. Why was it cited?) and (Mrs. 
Vasconcellos) Zr.P. 19, 535 for her opinion on the derivation of doito " — [the word 
"etymology" Is twice avoided). 

2 Words in brackets are inserted by me. 

418 



Duecho Once More 3 

by them and that the verb connected with each name indicated pre- 
cisely what each had done; I said: 

"Foerster .... derives Fr. duit .... from doctum " 

"Levy enters doch .... under Dozer, duitz .... under Duire." 

"Cornu .... connects adoito .... with edoctus. Lang, ZrP. 
XXXII p. 394, refers for doito de etc " 

These and my other references to Romance forms follow the same 
order in which they are given in § 1, p. 53. I submit that my work 
should be judged by what I have written, not by what Mr. Lang has 
substituted in its stead. 

Mr. Lang then sets forth how Diez, Kunst- und Hofpoesie 125, 
"quotes Sp. ducho," how Diez, Et. Wb. 564, "distinctly connects Sp. 
ducho with ducere," how Diez, Gramm.537 (=11 185), "identifies O.Sp. 
aducho with adduclus." And he concludes his article: "In so far, 
then, as it was at all necessary, in the light of its sense and of such 
words as acueducto, aguaducho, conducta, conducho (adj.) etc., to 
establish the etymology of ducho (and with this of dialectic duecho, 
quoted from Berceo and identified with ducho as early as 1885 by 
Cuervo, Apuntaciones crlticas p. 477), this was done once for all by 
the Founder of Romance Philology in works still honored by scholars, 
and it is greatly to be regretted that his name should be so con- 
spicuously absent in an article resuming this subject." 

First. For Sp. ducho in general I refer the reader (§1, p. 53) 
to Cuervo, Dice. s.v. Cuervo has about one column and a half (95 
lines) on ducho, usage, history, and etymology. It would have been 
more than superfluous to refer to or cite, by the side of Cuervo, this 
note (one line) from Diez, KHp.: "doito (doyto) D. 34=douto 
gewohnt, geiibt; sp. ducho." 

Secondly. For the etymology of ducho I refer the reader (§1, 
p. 54) to the statement of "Covarruvias (1674) s.v. Dvcho: 'Dvcho 
.... vale tanto como acostumbrado, del verbo Latino duco ducis. 
xi. ductum ....'" Again it would have been more than super- 
fluous to quote Diez, who centuries after Covarruvias came to the 
same conclusion. Furthermore, in §2, p. 55, the division begin- 
ning: "Sanchez ....," it is clear that I am dealing with what has 
been said about the etymology of duecho and not that of ducho. Diez 
has to the best of my knowledge nothing about duecho. There was no 

reason to mention his name. 

419 



4 K. PlETSCH 

Thirdly. Mr. Lang is wrong in saying that Diez has once for 
all established "the etymology of ducho (and with this of dialectic 
duecho ....)." The honor of having definitely connected duecho 
with ductu cannot be claimed for Diez who does not even mention 
duecho. And Diez is too full of honors to miss this. 

More might be said, but "sat prata biberunt." 

Inasmuch as there is nothing in the fifty-two lines of Mr. Lang's 
remarks which either corrects or supplements my etymology of duecho, 
I profit by the opportunity to offer some additional matter collected 
since the publication of my first article. 

Ad 1: Prim. Cr6n. Gen. 604 b 28 somos duchos (duechos 0) 
deste menester. Florinea 1 (NBAE XIV) 164 b cosa no duecha. 

Ad 2: I wish to emphasize Baist's statement: "docho fehlt kas- 
tilisch" and my own: "neither docto nor doto is found in Spain as 
early as duecho." And I would add that while docere is not attested 
either, there is much evidence for ducere. "There remains then only 
ductu as etymon." 

Ad 3 I b: F. Juzgo 39 V. L. 22 Esc. Gfiecho (Text f echo). 

Ad 3 I d: F. Oviedo (Vigil) 13 dientro (F. Avilfe 122 dintro). 
Vigil 67 b (1274). Caveda 63 (s. XVII) ; 75. La 011a asturiana 14. 29. 

Ad 3 I e la: Altspan. Glossen 98 (ZrP XIX 7) sen. 2 

/S: Staaff, L'ancien dialecte 16onais 37, 36 (1246) sien. 164, 
12 (1283). Cart. Eslonza 272 (1300). 273 (1302) ssien. 283 (1323). 
310 (1347). 312 (1347) ssien. 

Ad 3 II c : Ord. Caragoga I 234 nuena. 

Ad 3 II e: ZrP XXXIV 642 note 2 bueytre(s). 

Ad 3 II e a: Cart. Covarrubias (1907) 100 (1255) mocho menos- 
cabada. Ferreiro, Fueros municipales de Santiago y de su tierra I 
380 (Carta dirigida por D. Fernando IV, desde Salamanca, el 15 
de Junio de 1312) mocho menguadas. 

Ad 3 II f /3: Ord. Caragoca I 277 adueyto. 

K. PlETSCH 
The University of Chicago 

i Printed 1554. 

2 Of. also Priebsch's note, ZrP XIX 21. For senes, sines see further MonSndez Pldal, 
Cantar I 391. To one instance for sines de cited at the latter place I would add Ord. 
Caragoca I 266. 270. 271. On the other hand de sin occurs in Leyendas Mor. 1 126. 131. 
150. Finally I beg leave to mention Arag. sinse « sines ?), cf. Two Old Spanish Versions 
of the Disticha Oatonis 15 note 55. 

420