Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> If You think that *Pla:rius > Piario is a Latinization of
> **Bla:rios, why didn't it take place in place-names beginning with
> Celtic /Bl-/? And again, You don't have explained why /p/ in Parre
>

I think it would be useful to introduce the concept of "Para-Celtic" languages. Take for example the Rhaetian name of a kind of wheeled plough, glossed by Plyny as plaumoratum. This word, together with other forms in Rhaeto-Romance and Alpine Italian dialects derivated from *plovum can be linked to the Celtic word for 'rudder', reconstructed by Matasovic as *Flow-jo-,*Flow-ja:, which in turn is derivated from IE *pleu- 'to flow, to float' (Greek pléo: 'to sail'). I got this idea from Alinei (2000): Origini delle lingue d'Europa II, pp. 879-884.

Of course, the word 'plough' in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic is an Iron Age Wanderwort from this root with a velar extension *-g-.

> This is the fourth time I pray You to see that the absence of
> language replacements is NOT an assumption by my model, but the
> consequence of its implementation. It's disappointing how You refuse
> even the statements about my own model. It's my model, not Yours. I
> know it better than You. In order to arrive at an opinion (because
> it's just an opinion, like Your one) about the presence or absence of
> language replacements in Prehistory - since there's no General Law
> about language replacements - it's sufficient to rely on the mass of
> PIE etymologies based on my only assumption, the projection of PIE
> reconstructions (not even morphology: phonology and lexicon are
> enough) back to before the Neolithic (there's no General Law as well
> about the rate of linguistic change).
>

Which is a most *unwarranted* assumption typical of the PCT. And its consequence (i.e. the absence of language replacement in your model) reminds me of the Smith virus replication until it crowned everywhere in Matrix Revolutions (3rd film of the Matrix series).

> Consider e.g. the name Newfoundland: we know from history when it was
> born as name for that particular land, but the compound
> *newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m is already PIE, i.e. PIE system already had
> a compound *newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m, whose morpho-lexical meaning
> was 'new found (place) where (humans) have put a cleavage'
>

I strongly disagree. The word Newfoundland is English and only English. And although similar constructions could be found in other languages, there's no point in reconstructing a "PIE" protoform.

> I know that Your model is a multi-layer one. Don't You believe
> that I know that? I state again: Your model is multi-layer; Your model
> is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer;
> Your model is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer; Your model is
> multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer;
> Your model is multi-layer!
>

Definitively, you've got a virus!