Re: Ligurian

From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69441
Date: 2012-04-28

@ Octavià: I beg Your pardon if my sentences are sometimes quite
assertive; always frankly but friendly!

2012/4/28, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>:
> (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.
>>
>