Re: Salt, s-/h- ALLOBROGES

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

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
> > ======
> >
> > Are you sure
> > the way you are using "Venetic"
> > makes any sense and has any relationship
> > with the way Lejeune uses "Vénète" ?
>
> I hope it makes sense. That's for everyone to decide for himself.
> I use it in the 'Pokorny-sense'.
>
> ========
> I don't understand what this means.
> Please explain.
> Arnaud
> ========

See my other post.

> > I'm afraid you are calling someone
> > as a witness for your "hyper-Venetic" case
> > Who does not support anything of your own theories.
>
> Fear not. I'm quoting Lejeune, not calling him upon him as witness
> for anything.
>
> =========
> You are using the coincidence of your theory being called "venetic"
> and Lejeune's language being called "Venète"
> as a reason to quote Lejeune's book.

No. I'm proposing that the stem kant- in Venetic/Adria which Lejeune
sees as a name of a person, is identical to the stem kant- "edge,
faction, subtribe" seen i.a. in West Germanic, Celtic and Greek,
possibly in 'Chattic', and proposing a new reading based on that sense
of the Venetic/Adria inscriptions in which the stem occurs. Try
reading my post again.

> Therefore calling upon him as a witness,

Of what?

> I think he would disagree.

He might disagree if he insisted on the interpretation of kanta- as a
personal name.


Torsten