Re: Ligurian

(Gaulish *(g)uormo- < PIE *gwhormo- is in fact my own etymology of
Valtline Worms, as I stated in my previous message)
A Vasco-Caucasian etymology is always fascinating, but to state
that "X is exclusively Gaulish, and thus certainly not Celtic and much
less IE" is a fallacy (if You don't realize this, please give positive
reasons, not simple statements, so You can stop to be afraid). Bri:ua:
'bridge' is exclusively Gaulish, <pruuia> /bruuia:/ indeed exclusively
'Lepontic', but nevertheless they have PIE etymologies. Bo:na: (never
omit long /o:°/, please) < *bouna: can be analysed as *bhou[H]-nah2,
collective of *-no- verbal noun of possibility (therefore with
/o/-grade) as designation of a place with dwelt holes. Compared to
this etymology, Your one apparently doesn't explain the root vocalism,
so it has a shortcoming (one more than mine).
In La:rios and llawr, PIE /p/ is - to say the least - completely
dephonologized; in Pla:rios it appears to be fully preserved. This
differs from any treatment as /b/ and of course has nothing to do with
the distinction between p-Celtic and Q-Celtic.
Goedelic *makkwo-s (remember Ogham spelling with <Q>!) can only be
from *makw-nó-s (with /a/ of whatever origin), p-Celtic *mapos equally
necessarily from *makw-o-s, so both forms are simply suffixal variants
like *bhudh-o- : *bhudh-no-. I can't understand why Caucasian and
Sino-Tibetan comparisons are always presented by You as substrate
loanwords instead of genetic links. You CAN'T (CAN'T) assert that
*makkwo-s : *mVXXwA is more evident than *makw-nó-s : *makw-o-s.
"Making impossible to reconstruct a common Proto-Celtic form" simply
means that there are two Proto-Celtic forms (and this doesn't imply
that they aren't related); lack of complete identity is different from
lack of relationships, isn't it?

2012/4/28, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Bormani, just like Bormio, can better proceed from *bhor-mo-
> (*bher- 'boil')
>>
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" dgkilday57@ wrote:
>> >
>> > There is no basis for naming hot springs *bHor-mo-, and plenty for
>> > naming them *gWHor-mo-. Kretschmer's paper explains how Gaulish
> *borw-
>> > (from *bHorw-) was substituted for Ligurian *borm-, since no stem of
>> > similar sense occurred in Gaulish.
>>
> IMHO both Ligurian *bor-m- and Gaulish *bor-w- stem from the same root
> but with differents suffixes. This is parallel to Gaulish curmi 'beer'
> (and similar forms in Insular Celtic) < *kor-m- vs. Latin cerve:s(i)a,
> cer(e)visia, cervi:sa, a loanword from an apophonic variant *ker-w-
> corresponding to native cremor 'broth, pap'.
>
>> > The variant <Bormitomago> (abl., It. Ant.) very likely shows the
>> > original Ligurian stem of the place-name, with Gaul. <magos> 'field'
>> > appended, and the same typical Gaul. folk-etymological replacement
> of
>> > *Borm- with *Borw- in the more common <Borb->.
>>
> This is no folk-etymology but a straightforward translation (see above).
>
>> > The Germanic forms Latinized
>> > as <Warmatia>, <Wormacia>, <G(u)ormetia>, etc. indicate that the
> Germans
>> > translated the Lig. stem as 'warm', rather than folk-etymologizing
> it.
>>
> Actually, the forms with /o/ would be reflexes of an unattested Gaulish
> form *wor-m- regularly deriving from Celtic *gWer-m- < "PIE" *gWher-m-.
>
> While in traditional model, *bher-w- and *gWher- are different "PIE"
> roots, in my own model they would derive from a single paleo-IE root in
> two different paleo-dialects. And probably there's still a third output
> *k(W)er- reflected in Celtic *kWar-jo- 'cauldron' and the forementioned
> 'beer' words.
>
>> (Rather, I think You may have had no occasion of having a glance
> to the
>> 1200 pages of a recent book of mine - alas in local academic language
> - on
>> Bormio / Worms and other ca. 200 Pre-Roman place-names in Valtellina
> (or
>> Valtline, as they prefer to write) hosted by invitation in the
> Monograph
>> Series of I.D.E.V.V. (Institute for Dialectology and Ethnogaphy of
>> Valtellina and Valchiavenna). I can send You privately a copy of its
> 2009
>> thir edition if You want - although I heavily suspect that You'd
> perceive
>> it as "baloney" ;-)...
>>
> Is this American slang? Wikipedia says it's the name of an American
> sausage similar to Italian mortadella, although without visible pieces
> of lard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_sausage
>
>> In that case You should label as such the etymology
>> of Wien through Slavonic from PIE *Widhh1-u-n-yah2 instead of
> Windo-bo:na:
>> < PIE *Wi-n-d-o-bhou[h2]-nah2,
>>
> I'm affraid -bona: 'town' is exclusively Gaulish, and thus certainly not
> Celtic and much less IE. IMHO this is a Vasco-Caucasian loanword related
> to Basque -gue 'place (toponymic suffix) and (g)une 'interval; stretch',
> for which Bengtson proposed a link to NEC *G\G\win>\V 'village; house'
> (>\ is X-SAMPA for the epiglottal stop).
>
>> Since You have invoked the linguistic giant Kretschmer, one should
>> evaluate his theory for what it is: the reconstruction of a lost
>> Indo-European language on the basis of - for what is relevant here -
> just a
>> couple of names, viz. Aquae Bormiae* and debelis. His objection to
> Gaulish
>> *bormo- is too optimistic in its negativity, because it treats a
>> Restsprache as a Groszcorpussprache. The only possible Gaulish
> attestation
>> of *bormo- could be the disputed form Bormo-: they cannot be used as
>> evidence, but the same must be stated for Bormo- as evidence for an
> alleged
>> Ligurian outcome of *Gwhor-mo-! This is nevertheless possible, but
> then You
>> have 200 (not just two!) place-names, between the Alps and Liguria,
> that
>> clearly testify to the completely regular development in situ from PIE
>> to Continental Celtic in Cisalpine Gaul.
>>
> The last statement reflects one of the main postulates (I'd rather say
> apriorism) of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory which negates the
> existence of prehistoric language replacement processes and thus
> toponymic stratification.
>
>> Only very rare
>> not-still-completely-p-Celtic spots can be detected here and there (a
>> famous instance is Palaeoligurian Porcobera; another one can be Piario
>> [Bergamo] < Orobic *pla:rios = Celtic *La:rios 'lake Como', Welsh
> llawr).
>>
> The Proto-Celtic reconstruction is actually *Fla:ro- 'floor', with an
> initial voiceless labial fricative. Although this consonant (represented
> as /f/ by some specialists, e.g. Matasovic) was lost in most historical
> languages, at least before /l/ it was retained by some varieties such as
> Gallaecian (i.e. western Hispano-Celtic), as in e.g. Bleitasama vs.
> Celtiberian Leitasama.
>
> But this has nothing to do with P-Celtic, whose /p/ is secondary from
> Proto-Celtic *kW in the native lexicon (as it can also appear in late
> foreign loanwords).
>
>> I leave unreplied Your amusing humour about de Bernardo Stempel's
> - for
>> me still convincing - etymology of Ingauni; if You have stronger
>> counterarguments, please state them explicitly, this is the right
> place to
>> do it. Same for the recommended "full day-killer treatment", where
> I'll
>> escape the trap of joking about those who kill a day, since I'm
> perfeclty
>> aware that Kilday is in the majority of cases an Anglicization of
> Gaelic
>> Mac Giolla Deághaidh 'Son of the Servant of Goodwin' (deagh- 'good'
> + ádh
>> 'luck, fate'), itself a highly intriguing etymological question, isn't
> it?
>>
> Goidelic *makk- 'son' has a geminate velar not reflected in its P-Celtic
> cognate *map-, thus making impossible to reconstruct a common
> Proto-Celtic form. IMHO this is a Vasco-Caucasian substrate loanword
> related to NEC *mVXXwA 'fiancé, son-in-law' and Sino-Tibetan *ma:k
> 'son-in-law'. Of course, this etymology has to be understood in the
> context of a Neolithic matriarcal society.
>