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

From: Torsten
Message: 68674
Date: 2012-03-01

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >
> >
> >> > Please add your comments *after* the paragraph you comment on,
> >> > so that Brian or I won't have to do it for you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that
> >> >> explanation
> >> > I don't understand your use of 'demonstrate' in that context.
> >
> >> You wrote that You think 'mot populaire' means 'loan'.
> >
> > No, I didn't. This is what happened

> Maybe it happened, but nevertheless You wrote words that imply
> that You believe that 'mot populaire' means 'loan'. If You deny
> this, we cannot continue neither this discussion nor any other one.

Your interpretation of what I said as meaning that I think the French phrase 'mot populaire' translates to English 'loan' would make sense only if you think I don't know basic French. I could choose to interpret that as an insult, I chose not to. You are of course free to leave the discussion any time you please.


> Second point: it's a matter of definition, so it cannot really
> 'happen'.

The 'this' in my above statement refers to what followed, not to what preceded that statement. You seem to have misunderstood that too.

>You can state that 'mot populaire' means 'loan', but this
> pertains to present-day French and English.

See above.

> Third point: neither You nor I nor anyone else were there, in
> Rome or Latium, at that time. We can made guesses, but we can't
> state "it happened"

True. I thought that was obvious. For your benefit I will emend my above statement to 'This is what I think happened'.

> >
> >> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
> >> >
> >> > I think it does.
> >
> >> Please demonstrate it
> >
> > The only way I can get that to match what you claim is by assuming
> > that you think I don't know that 'mot populaire' translates to
> > English "popular/folksy word". Actually I do know that.
> >
> >> Since 'populaire' means 'of the folk' and English 'loan' is
> >> 'emprunt' in French, it follows that 'popular' doesn't coincide
> >> with 'loan'. So, if You nevertheless think that 'mot populaire'
> >> means 'loan', I would like a logical argumentation that in this
> >> case 'mot populaire' implies being a loanword.
> >
> > I will now explain what I meant above: I think the 'mots
> > populaires', ie those covered by that term as used by
> > Ernout-Meillet, are loans in the Latin language.
> >

> You have now explained what You meant. On that I had no doubt.

Yes? Then why did you claim that I thought 'mot populaire' translated as 'loan'?

> What I lack is a proof that such words were taken from a language
> other than Latin (because I don't know of any other language where
> those words are attested) into Latin (i.e. a further proof that the
> direction of the loan was precisely from non-Latin into Latin)

We don't have proof in linguistics, as you should know, only disproof.

> >> >
> >> >> 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);
> >
> > They have have also been characterised as words belonging to the
> > lower class *and* religious sphere.
> >

> All that is so lovely vague that everybody can build every
> theory on such a basis.

The important fact is that these words are concentrated in a few semantic spheres, which indicates (not 'proves') that they derived from a particular sociolect of Latin, correponding to one of the component people of the ethnogenesis of the Roman people.

> Till now, the presence of the vowel /a/
> cannot be, per se, a proof that a word isn't of Latin origin.

As I said, there is no proof in linguistics, only disproof.

> Latin /a/ is different from, say, /p/ in Q-Celtic languages

In what way?

> >> >> You are quite severe when You define 'contrived' the
> >> >> explanations through *h2 (but that's simply Your "feeling", as
> >> >> You write);
> >> >
> >> > Yes. Thus I don't 'define' it as contrived.
> >> >
> >> OK You are quite severe when You feel that the explanations
> >> through *h2 are 'contrived'
> >
> > I can't make sense of that sentence.

> Do You feel that explanations through *h2 are 'contrived'?

Yes.


> If no, I beg Your pardon; if yes, You apply a criterion which is
> quite tough in comparison with the optimism with which You accept as
> true a substrate hypothesis

Do you feel that is the case?


> >> >> 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?)
> >
> >> > Venetic. Possibly Dacian/Thracian.
> >
> >
> >> Do You have any proof of the presence of Venetic and possibly
> >> Dacian or Thracian in the Proto-Germanic Homeland?
> >> If yes, which one?
> >
> > The Germanic homeland in the 2nd - 1st century BCE was what is now
> > Southern Poland, Belarus and Western Ukraine
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scirii
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

> Not just there and not principally there and not only so late.

You asked for a time and place of the Venetic and Dacian/Thracian influence on Germanic. I provided it. That the Germani at other times were at other places is irrelevant.

> You don't mention Northern Germany and Scandinavia

That's right.

> > The
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
> > with their
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language
> > were present there, so were the

> No. I'm sorry. A people called Veneti were there. Venetic
> language was spoken, as far as we know, in the Upper Adriatic Basin.
> It CAN be that it was spoken in Southern Poland as well, but this is
> just a simple hypothesis. We don't have a single piece of evidence
> in favour of such hypothesis

Not true.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/4443

>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians
> > under
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
> > with their
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daco-Thracian#Daco-Thracian
> > or
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

> As for Thracian, this is simply wrong. Thracian was spoken in
> Thrace; there is a couple of names in Regnum Bosporanicum that can
> be of Thracian etymology. That's all. There area in between is
> rather Dacian.

Okay, so that's what you think.
Strabo and Pliny the Elder disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians
'Strabo and Pliny the Elder state they spoke the same language'

> As for Dacian, it's quite sure that it was spoken West and East
> of the Carpathian Range. More to the North, there were Slavs; the
> hydronimic evidence (Udolph) is too strong

Here's a -dava within the range of Germanic (Sciri) settlements at the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setidava

> >
> >
> >> >> You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then
> >> >> You must be even more skeptical about substrates;
> >> >
> >> > No.
> >
> >
> >> Aha. Do You think then that IE needs to be more justified
> >> than everything else? More than conjectural substrates?
> >
> > Venetic is not conjectural.

> Chinese as well is not conjectural, but a Chinese substratum for
> Germanic is.

True, because we can't document the presence of speakers of the Chinese language at the requisite time near the orbit of the community of Germanic-speakers.

> Likewise, Venetic is not conjectural, but the assumption
> that the Veneti (neighbours of the Germani) spoke Venetic IS
> conjectural.

See above, plus the name. According to Kuhn Germanic had early contact with an Italic language. Venetic is Italic.

> Please note that I wrote 'conjectural substrates'. As
> substrate for Germanic, Venetic is conjectural (of course it's not
> conjectural as substrate for, say, North-Adriatic Romance)

> >> >
> >> >> otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You
> >> >> have to accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations
> >> >
> >> > No.
> >
> >> Maybe You like strong adfirmations, but Your adfirmations are
> >> in some cases too poorly argumented.
> >> So, please, why should substrates have privileges that
> >> hereditary explanations don't have?
> >
> > That's not a matter of principle for me; in this case the
> > existence of the substrate language I chose is well documented.

> It's documented in another place, not in the neighbourhood of
> the Germans, where Baltic and (farther away) Slavonic are
> (hydronymically) documented. Northern Adriatc is quite far from
> Proto-Germanic Homeland, just as moch as from Homer's Anatolian
> Enetoi. Nobody would state without other proofs that Venetic is
> *documented* in Homer's Anatolia

Well, let's say there are good reasons to assume it existed there.

> >
> >> Wouldn't it be better if we used one and the same criterion for
> >> all etymologies?
> >
> > Which one would that be?
> Diachronic phonological precision and areal linguistic
> philological care

You didn't answer the question. Which criterion is it you recommend?

> >> >> even if these make redundant substrate hypotheses
> >> >
> >> > They don't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Laryngeal etymologies can be measured. They can be correct at
> >> phonological, lexical, and morphological level or not.
> >
> > They can be true, but in priciple we can't verify that. That's why
> > we precede them by an asterisk.

> Every linguistic reconstruction is preceded by an asterisk. Your
> reconstructions as well. That doesn't imply that they aren't correct

It implies we don't know whether they are true.

> >
> >> If they are correct, they reach the best linguistic standard.
> >
> > Here you must be using the word 'correct' in some other sense,
> > such as 'complying with the current practice of linguists'.

> Yes
> >> Documented substrates can offer an alternative. Of course
> >> substrate etymologies must be correct as well. If so, they are at
> >> the same level of correct hereditary etymologies.
> >
> > Erh, okay.
> >
> >> Not documented substrates are hypothetical.
> >
> > Venetic and Dacian/Thracian are documented.

Well, the existence of Venetic is documented elsewhere. And there are good reasons to assume it was spoken on the Baltic too.
As for Dacian-speakers, their presence is documented by the existence of Setidava.

> Not in the area we are discussing. THERE they are hypothetical.
> Phoenician is not hypothetical, generally speaking. It would be
> and in fact is hypothetical if treated as substrate for Germanic.
> Same for Venetic and Dacian (Thracian is excluded anyway).

See above.

> >
> >> They can indeed be postulated, especially if there aren't
> >> hereditary etymologies. If, on the contrary, there are correct
> >> hereditary etymologies, substrate etymologies (from not
> >> documented substrates) are praeter necessitatem
> >
> > Since Venetic and Dacian/Thracian are documented, your above
> > remarks don't apply.

> Since Venetic and Dacian are not documented in that area, but in
> quite distant regions, my remarks still apply.

Since there are good reasons to assume the existence of Venetic and Dacian/Thracian in that are, they don't.


Torsten