Re: The reason for Caesar's obtaining the two Gauls as province

Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that explanation
On one side You are so tough that You want all semantic groups to
show *exactly* the same phonemic distribution, although one can always
group words with one phoneme and then affirm that such phoneme
characterizes their prevailing meaning ('populaire' is very vague for
the complex of Latin words with /a/ of non-laryngeal origin: cacumen
calamitas calare calidus callis calx cancer candere cardo carina
carinare caro carpere carpinus carrere caterua scabere scalpere
scamnum scandere scatere; auillus caudex cauere cauilla cauos fauere
fauila fauis(s)ae Fauonius Faui fauos fraus laus lauere pauere rauos;
malleus malus manere manus marcere mare margo maritus mateola; canis
fax quaerere qualum/s quatere squalus suasum uacca uagus ualgus ualuae
uas uastus; flagrare frangere gradior labra lac magnus nassa trabs;
fraces lapis latus patere sacena aries gramen gramiae trahere faba;
castrare farcire farnus fastigium ianitrices mala nancire pando panus
passer quattuor sarcire sarire spargere uannus);
You are quite severe when You define 'contrived' the explanations
through *h2 (but that's simply Your "feeling", as You write);
on the other side You are so confident as to postulate whole
languages (never attested as such) in the ethnogesis of Romans and
Germani (which languages?)

You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then You must
be even more skeptical about substrates;
otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You have to
accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations even if these make
redundant substrate hypotheses

2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/2/28, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>>
>> >> > 'calles' has root 'a', thus it is a 'mot populaire' and as such
>> >> > not directly descended from PIE by the same route as 'regular'
>> >> > Latin. Ie. it is a loan.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> No.
>> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
>> >
>> > I think it does.
>
>> Please demonstrate it
>>
>
> That I think so?
> I assume you want me to tell why I prefer that explanation.
> It's like this:
>
> 1. The 'mots populaires' belong to a particlar semantic sphere, namely that
> pertaining to lower classes of Roman society. You would not see that skewed
> distribution if they had been descended from PIE the same way as other Latin
> words.
>
> 2. Kuhn pointed out that many Latin words with root -a- have correspondences
> with root -a- in Germanic.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36941?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36946?var=0&l=1
> I am sure those -a-'s can 'explained' as reflexes of -h2-, but I feel that
> is contrived. Given the etnic and linguistic environment at the time of the
> ethnogensis of Romans and Germani I prefer to ascribe them to a language or
> several related languages present both places at the requisite time.
>
>> >
>> >> 2) There are plenty of sources for Latin /a/
>> >> e.g. from */e/ after PIE pure velar */k/
>> >
>> > I also think pure velars indicate loans.
>> >
>
>> Same as above
>
> Pure velars tend to occur with -a-. Therefore I suspect they have the same
> origin.
>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>