From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 14599
Date: 2002-08-27
----- Original Message -----From: tgpedersenSent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:38 PMSubject: [tied] Re: Cimbri
I've read and reread those postings, but as far as I can see his
argument hinges on:
1) There was no *com-brogia in Common Celtic times (??? - absence of
evidence etc). Why wouldn't any Celt at the time have hit on the idea
of combining those two words? Why is that so certain?
2) *com-brogia must have been coined at Welsh-Cumbrian times and
therefore cannot have existed earlier. This argument rests on the
assumption that compounds are never re-formed, when phonological
development renders its various parts unrecognizable. That is false.
3) Much table-thumping.