From: Torsten
Message: 68714
Date: 2012-03-02
>So then they were the same people? Why did they change their language then?
> 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@...>:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root#Restrictions_on_the_plosives
> >> 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 corresponding 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/) notThat's right. Most of those PIE *b-'s are concluded from Germanic *p- only. The whole idea of positing a reconstructed root is to base it on more than one occurrence in the daughter languages. All those solo occurrences of p- in Germanic raises the suspicion that those words don't belong there.
> 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 areThat would be a silly thing to say. However, this type of reasoning:
> 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'sThey are all hypotheses. What is your point?
> presented for what it is: a simple hypothesis (a reductionist one)
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:Actually Kuhn posited two NWB languages: an original non-IE one, which he called the ar-/ur-language, and a later, shortlived IE language.
> >> 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@...>:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59384?var=0&l=1
>
> > 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.
> > so I suspected identifying toponym (reverse) betacism wouldhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60815?var=0&l=1
> > establish the presence of Veneti.
> >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59928?var=0&l=1
> > FWIW
> >Which ones?
> >
> You grouped together attestations with
> Middle Greek orthography (<b> for /v/),
> Middle High German phonology (with <w> and <b> for a voiced bilabialWhich ones?
> fricative)
> and Romance outputs according to the sound law /v/ > /b/ whenWhich ones?
> followed by vowel + continuous + stop (e.g. uesper > bespro, uulpes > bolpe)
> or simply /b/ > /v/ word-initially (Southern Italo-Romance).Wich ones?
> Please note that we have NO trace of such treatments in REALVenetic uses it own alphabet, so we don't know how they pronounced the letter descended from /v/ in other alphabets. The fact that the use the letter descended from /z/ for PIE d (written zonasto, zoto for presumed donasto, doto "gave") raises suspicion that PIE d- > Venetic d-/ð-, thus we could have PIE w > Venetic b/β as in Spanish, Neapolitan and Maceratese
> Venetic inscriptions!