Re: Venetic [Was: The reason for Caesar's obtaining the two Gauls as

2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>>
>> IMHO all ancient Veneti and Venetes were IE tribes with the same
>> name and no more. Of course they had some lexicon in common, but no
>> special relationships.
>
> Why the common name then?

——————————————————————————————————————
Because they preserved their name since PIE epoch, the age of
migrations (Upper Palaeolithic; later on Neolithic as well and
partially also Chalcolithic)
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> It would be different in the case on NW-Block, but unfortunately
>> no NWB-etymology is better than traditionally hereditary IE
>> etymologies of Germanic words, so everything remains just a
>> possibility.
>
> That statement makes me fear that you haven't understood the criteria by
> which Kuhn identified his NWB words.
>
> They were
>
> 1) initial p-, since if Germanic, it would have to be from PIE *b- and those
> words are very rare, and if Celtic, they (because of the Grimm-shift) would
> have to be p-Celtic with a corrsponding PIE root in *kW-; if none such
> exists, the word must be from a third language.
>
> 2) root structure *T1VT2- where T1 and T2 are unvoiced stops, since they, if
> Germanic, because of the Grimm-shift would have to be from PIE *D1VD2-,
> where D1 and D2 are unvoiced stops, but that type of structure violates a
> PIE root structure constraint, thus they are not Germanic, but belong (most
> likely) to a non-Germanic language

——————————————————————————————————————
There's no such PIE root constraint; the argument is circular.
Take words like 'take' itself: one says that D1VD2 isn't IE, then
finds the very roots *deg- and *ged- and says "aha, so they can't be
PIE".
PIE */b/ has realtively many attestations (more than */gwh/) not
only in Germanic, but also in Armenian, Latin and Old Indic. Mots
attestations are Germanic because Germanic words are more than those
of any other class, so every PIE phoneme is mostly represented by
Germanic!
With this method one can say: */gwh/ isn't PIE. But there are
roots with */gwh/. Aha, so they can't be PIE. They are rather reflexes
of PIE */gw/ through substrates or in any case loans from an IE class
to another one.
It's too easy, I can't accept such a reasoning unless it's
presented for what it is: a simple hypothesis (a reductionist one)
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> If yes, however, they wouldn't be a residue of an
>> earlier wider substrate, because the are in between exhibit
>> place-names which have experimented all sound laws from PIE to
>> Celtic (and no other sound laws), so there's direct continuity in
>> Central (and Western) Europe form PIE to Celtic (and all possible
>> words on non-IE origins have *better* IE-Celtic etymologies).
>
> That is at odds with what I know. Please cite an example of a place name
> with competing NWB and Celtic etymologies in NWEurope.

——————————————————————————————————————
You give orders, but I don't understand their sense. I've written:
"all possible words on non-IE origins have *better* IE-Celtic
etymologies". NWB is of IE origin. So what has NWB to do here?
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

> Many (coastal) Slovenian dialects have
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacism ,
> or rather the reverse, *w- -> *b-
> according to
> Josef Savli, Matej Bor
> "Unsere Vorfahren die Venter"
> which nice linguists don't read, but which provides much data.
> cf.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59384?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59332
> so I suspected identifying toponym (reverse) betacism would establish the
> presence of Veneti.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60815?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62508?var=0&l=1
>
> FWIW
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59928?var=0&l=1
>
>
> Torsten

——————————————————————————————————————
You grouped together attestations with Middle Greek orthography
(<b> for /v/), Middle High German phonology (with <w> and <b> for a
voiced bilabial fricative) and Romance outputs according to the sound
law /v/ > /b/ when followed by vowel + continuous + stop (e.g. uesper

> bespro, uulpes > bolpe) or simply /b/ > /v/ word-initially (Southern

Italo-Romance).
Please note that we have NO trace of such treatments in REAL
Venetic inscriptions!