Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "弗里吉亚语" in Chinese language version.
We have already seen that Celtic nāmant- gives an excellent cognate to Lat. amāre. Vendryes (loc. cit.) points out that ad is shared by the Northwest IE group (Celtic, Italic and Germanic) and additionally by Phrygian, citing the well known αδδακετ and αββερετ. But the agreement goes much deeper than that. The noun (from which the verb ἀδαμνεῖν must be derived) ἅδαμνα has every appearance of being a participle in -n- (perhaps -no-) of a verb ad-am-. We may then make the surprising equation: ad-nāmat(o)- < *ad-n-H amH a-to- = ἅδ-αμ-να. This agreement in detail makes a substantial addition to the Phrygian-Celtic equation that Marstrander observed (NTS ii (1929) 297) for OIr. eitech < *eti-teg-. It would appear from this that we have a slender but growing body of evidence for a close connexion between Celtic (and Italic) and Phrygian. The Phrygian evidence, now being sifted and reevaluated by Lejeune, could well bear close scrutiny in this light. It may not be too bold at this point to suggest a stronger link here with Celtic.
We have already seen that Celtic nāmant- gives an excellent cognate to Lat. amāre. Vendryes (loc. cit.) points out that ad is shared by the Northwest IE group (Celtic, Italic and Germanic) and additionally by Phrygian, citing the well known αδδακετ and αββερετ. But the agreement goes much deeper than that. The noun (from which the verb ἀδαμνεῖν must be derived) ἅδαμνα has every appearance of being a participle in -n- (perhaps -no-) of a verb ad-am-. We may then make the surprising equation: ad-nāmat(o)- < *ad-n-H amH a-to- = ἅδ-αμ-να. This agreement in detail makes a substantial addition to the Phrygian-Celtic equation that Marstrander observed (NTS ii (1929) 297) for OIr. eitech < *eti-teg-. It would appear from this that we have a slender but growing body of evidence for a close connexion between Celtic (and Italic) and Phrygian. The Phrygian evidence, now being sifted and reevaluated by Lejeune, could well bear close scrutiny in this light. It may not be too bold at this point to suggest a stronger link here with Celtic.
We have already seen that Celtic nāmant- gives an excellent cognate to Lat. amāre. Vendryes (loc. cit.) points out that ad is shared by the Northwest IE group (Celtic, Italic and Germanic) and additionally by Phrygian, citing the well known αδδακετ and αββερετ. But the agreement goes much deeper than that. The noun (from which the verb ἀδαμνεῖν must be derived) ἅδαμνα has every appearance of being a participle in -n- (perhaps -no-) of a verb ad-am-. We may then make the surprising equation: ad-nāmat(o)- < *ad-n-H amH a-to- = ἅδ-αμ-να. This agreement in detail makes a substantial addition to the Phrygian-Celtic equation that Marstrander observed (NTS ii (1929) 297) for OIr. eitech < *eti-teg-. It would appear from this that we have a slender but growing body of evidence for a close connexion between Celtic (and Italic) and Phrygian. The Phrygian evidence, now being sifted and reevaluated by Lejeune, could well bear close scrutiny in this light. It may not be too bold at this point to suggest a stronger link here with Celtic.
