Re: Salt, s-/h- ALLOBROGES

--- On Tue, 10/28/08, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

> From: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...>
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Salt, s-/h- ALLOBROGES
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 1:34 PM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
> Michel Lejeune,
> Manuel de la langue Vénète
>
> [...]
> Torsten
>
> ======
>
> Are you sure
> the way you are using "Venetic"
> makes any sense and has any relationship
> with the way Lejeune uses "Vénète" ?
>
> I'm afraid you are calling someone
> as a witness for your "hyper-Venetic" case
> Who does not support anything of your own theories.
>
> My own understanding of Lejeune
> (but I'm ready to acknowledge I'm not well enough
> versed in it)
> is that Lejeune assumes Venetic to be a kind of Italic
> language.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ========

I have to agree with Arnaud.
Venetic, as we know it and as it has been named, is either an Italic language or a language closely related to Italic ("Italoid" is a term I've seen used).
In naming conventions, the oldest usage of the name usually applies, even when it is later determined to be wrong later on --e.g. there are arguments regarding the identification of Olmecs with historical Olmecs, and of Tokharians with historical Tokharoi.
So if you're are applying Venetic to something else than the language spoken in NE Italy, you need to distinguish it.
Call it Torstenic or Torstenstal, if you wish, but don't confuse people.

Back to NE Italian Venetic. There are a slew of lesser known IE languages that some have lumped in with Venetic, including (IE) Ligurian, Lusitanian, Illyrian, Liburnian, IE Sikeli, etc.
What is the latest scoop on this? Is there enough to tell?