Re: Belgs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
> >
> > Now the interesting part is the observation that the Bolg- and Volg-
> > areas are disjoint, which is this case has led some researchers to
> > postulate a FU substrate. This is interesting because we earlier
> > discussed the possibility of a b-/v- alternation as a diagnostic of
> > Venetic presence
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59384
> > etc
> > and note a similar v-/b- alternation in the Polish instances of the
> > 'southern foreigner' word
> > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsche
>
> =========
> It's difficult to understand how a FU substrate could explain b/v.

You're right, that makes no sense.

> If I understood your theory about Venetic,
> this languagee is supposed to have occupied much of Central Europe
> _before_ Italic+Celtic intruded in that area.
> Is that right ?

Acc. to Okulicz Germanic from the West and Baltic and Slavic from the
East replaced the speech of the Veneti and Aestii (similar to each
other) which was once a neighbor to Italic. The idea that Adriatic
Venetic was part of that is from a fanciful book: Joz^ef S^avli/Matej
Bor, Unsere Vorfahren die Veneter (Engl. transl.: "Veneti - First
Builders of European Community"), except they think the Veneti were Slavs.
Krahe pointed out related pairs of river names on Aestic and Adriatic
Veneti territory.

So Celtic intruded: yes.


Torsten