From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69478
Date: 2012-05-01
> 2012/5/1, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>
>> Without seeing your book, I will not label it "baloney".
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> That would be too marked; in fact I've written that I suspect that
> You'd perceive it as "baloney" *once I'd sent You a copy of it*.
> Anyway, You response is already at the end of Your message ("Your
> methodology does TOO MUCH, but I doubt that anyone can convince you of
> the folly of that": that means that the more I try to demonstrate my
> thesis with a normal procedure - etymology according to accepted sound
> laws - the more You'd be convicted that I'm wrong; so I have to
> restart the discussion from the question about the set of Ligurian
> sound-laws - as You correctly underline below)
>
>> DGK:
>> What I fail to understand is why you should invoke an /o:/-grade in the
>> first place, unless it is a mere red herring intended to distract
>> attention
>> from the straightforward analysis of Ligurian toponyms in Barg- as
>> reflecting Lig. *barg-, equivalent to Celt. *brig- and Gmc. *burg-, from
>> PIE
>> *bHr.g^H-.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> What's straightforward is the comparison between Barga and the
> root *bherg'h- in its meaning 'hill, mountain'. When it comes to the
> question of the root's ablaut grade, one should at least take into
> consideration all the five of them (we have no means of knowing the
> vowel quantity of /a/):
> 1) *bhrg'h- > *barg- with vocalic */r/ > /ar/ as in Greek, Anatolian,
> Armenian, Iranian
> 2) *bherg'h- > *barg- with */e/ > /a/ as in Iranian and Indic
> 3) *bhorg'h- > *barg- with */o/ > /a/ as in Germanic, Baltic,
> Messapian, Albanian, Anatolian, Iranian and Indic
> 4) *bhe:rg'h- > *barg- with */e:/ > /a:/ as in Germanic
> 5) *bho:rg'h- > *barg- with */o:/ > /a:/ as in Celtic
>
> (Note that no possible outcome is like in Latin or Italic)
>
> The spare formation on *bherg'h- that we can detect in the ancient
> Ligurian area are - beside Barga - Bargagli (Genoa; cf. Bergalei in
> the Tabula Clesiana, now Bregaglia = Upper Mera / Maira Valley [North
> of Lake Como], Grisons, Switzerland), Briaglia (Cuneo), and Bregançon
> < Brigantio.
> Bargagli : Bergalei would suggest solution n° 2, but then one
> should explain away Briaglia (apparently formed with the same suffixal
> complex) and Brigantio as Celticisms, in areas that Ancient Authors
> ascribe to the Ligurians. Solution n° 1 (Your favourite one) has the
> same shortcoming and is compelled to consider Bargagli and Bergalei
> different ablaut formations. Solution n° 5 is the only one that opts
> for an outcome found in a neighbouring class, i.e. Celtic, has the
> advantage of keeping free for Ligurian (again, as in Celtic, quite
> coherently with previous hypothesis) the outcome of vocalic */r/ as
> /ri/ (and therefore ascribe Brigantio and Briaglia to the Ligurians,
> without postulating special Celtic immigrations) and, just like Your
> favourite solutions, distinguishes Bargagli and Bergalei as different
> ablaut grades. I can't see any advantage in solutions nn. 3 and 4, so
> I leave them. As a result, solution n° 5 is preferable, event if
> Ligurian shouldn't be Celtic for the rest. Q.E.D.
>
>> DGK:
>> In Kretschmer's view, Ligurian was not a lost language, but recorded in
>> the
>> inscription of Ornavasso; the language was later designated "Lepontic" by
>> Danielsson to avoid controversy over whether or not it was Celtic. Not
>> only
>> K. but Pederson, Dottin, Vetter, Whatmough, and other scholars agreed
>> that
>> Lepontic is not Celtic.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> After Prestino's <Uvamokozis> < *Upömo-ghostis, every Celtologist
> agrees that Lepontic is completely Celtic, so Kretschmer's theory has
> to be radically modified at least for Lepontic (BTW You meant
> Pedersen, don't You?)
>
>> DGK:
>> And unless you have a comprehension problem, you know that K. provided
>> additional evidence: *Bormita, the gods Bormanus, Bormana, Bormanicus,
>> etc.
>> His paper does not reconstruct a whole language on the basis of two
>> place-names, as your rhetoric implies.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> I've written "two place-names"; I correct: "two place-name stems";
> their enumeration - *bormo- and *debel- - remains unchanged, so it's a
> matter of terminology. OK, Kretschmer has built his theory on *two
> place-name stems*; I've built mine on more than 200 place-name stems
> (and their are just the basis; 700 more can be added as a
> consequence). Is it OK?
>
>> DGK:
>> Perhaps you should move to the U.S.
>> and become a Republican talk-radio host.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> I'm a Eurasianist (i.e. I desire a political Union between Western
> Countries, Russia, China, India, and Islamic Countries); I'd Enemy N°
> 1 in a Republican environment...
>
>> DGK:
>> Anyhow, it appears
>> to me that your knowledge of Celtic etymology has been put to an ill use
>> in
>> Liguria. Evidently you are one of the Super Mario Brothers, belonging to
>> Mario Alinei's brotherhood of palaeolithic continuitists,
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Between Alinei's theory and my own one there's more difference
> than between mine and Yours (e.g. for this specific point under
> discussion: You classify Ancient Ligurian as an Indo-European language
> for its own, of 'centum'-kind, with */bh/ > /b/ and so on; I as a
> Celtic language, that is with exaclt these features, just adding
> locally restricted dephonologization of */p/; Alinei thinks that
> *Ancient* Ligurian was an 'Italid' - in his words - language,
> Indo-European and centum but with */bh/ > /f/ - as in *Bhertor >
> Fertor, now Bisagno [Genoa] - quite like Kretschmer's Venetic, based
> on the same example)
>
>> DGK:
>> and your mind was
>> made up years ago that no prehistoric linguistic replacement occurred.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> For Your knowledge, it results that I'm still the last man who has
> published a monography (800 p.) about no less than the 'Mediterranean'
> substrate (on whose existence now I cast radical doubts because I
> ascribe its lexicon to Celtic and Italic). This means that 1) I change
> my ideas (I don't if this is good, but it's anyway a fact), and 2) I
> know what I'm criticizing. At that time, I admitted the existence of
> Kretschmer's Venetic in Liguria (Fertor), like Alinei; after having
> read Alinei's book, no more. So my ideas are become more distant from
> Alinei's ones after the publication of his books (this isn't neither
> good nor bad, it's a fact).
>
>> DGK:
>> Therefore, your toponomastic program is the mere drone-work of inventing
>> conceivable (not even plausible) Celtic etymologies
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> You still have to explain what's less plausible in a lengthened
> grade with collective or appurtenance meaning for a name of a mountain
> hamlet than in a zero-grade, especially when this zero-grade is a mere
> levelling of a PIE ablauting paradigm (with lengthened grade as well).
>
>> DGK:
>> for all place-names
>> where Celts are historically known to have lived, and if you get stuck
>> with
>> something like Porcobera, you defy established Celtic studies and invent
>> an
>> "archaic Celtic" which retained initial /p/ right up to Roman times and
>> beyond.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Facts:
> 1) In Ireland there are place names of the structure Áth 'Ford' + X
> (Paradebeispiel: Áth Cliath); O'Rahilly in 1943 has detected an older
> layer with posponed -ad (where /d/ < */t/ regularly in post-posttonic
> position)
> 2) OIr. áth < PIE *h1iah2-tu-s 'passage' (√*h1iah2- 'go' < √*h1ei- 'go')
> 3) In Western Romance Countries there's a toponymic layer with final -at
> 4) These place-names are often named after the rivers along which
> such places are situated (e.g. Agognate on Agogna river, Terdobbiate
> on Terdoppio, Arnate on Arno [Lombardy], Lonate on Olona, Lambrate on
> Lambro, Beverate on Bevera, Brembate on Brembo, Seriate on Serio);
> 5) Their locations are not just like any other one; they are
> precisely where the principal ancient roads between prehistoric
> centres (Como, Bergamo, and so on) crossed those rivers (particularly,
> the two Brembate are where Adda river is crossed by the road between
> Bergamo and Como and respectively between Bergamo and Milan, whose
> site was topographically relevant also before 600 BC because is 2m
> higher than the surrounding plain and therefore could emerge as an
> island from the ancient moor)
> 4) There are regular correspondences between Irish and Romance
> names, e.g. Áth Bó = Bobbiate, Áth Carr = Carate, Áth Caoin = Cenate,
> Áth Cliath = Cedate, Áth Cúile = Cugliate, Áth Fearna = Vernate, Áth
> Garbháin = Garbagnate, Áth Lóich = Locate (old Leocade), Áth Malain =
> Malnate, Áth Nó = Novate [still transparent], and many more
> 5) These correspondences fall together with hundreds of Western
> Romance (and, in this case, specifically Lombard) place-names
> completely identical with Celtic names (e.g. Duno [Varese] = dún)
> 6) Pre-Roman inscriptions in the area of -ate-names are *only*
> Lepontic and Gaulish, therefore only Celtic (other linguistic layers
> can theoretically have been present, but till now one has not found
> any contemporary evidence of them)
>
> Working hypothesis: -ate = OIr. áth 'ford'
>
> Let's see: Áth Nó < Celtic *Ia:tus nowos 'new ford'; *Nowo-ia:tus
>> Latin *Nouoia:tus > Romance †Novoggiate: it doesn't work
> But let's try again: Áth Nó < Celtic *Ia:tus nowos 'new ford' < PIE
> *H1iah2tus ne/owos; *Nowo-h1iah2tus > Late PIE *Nowo:ja:tus > Celtic
> *Nowa:ja:tus > *Nowa:a:tus (regular loss of /j/ between identical
> vowels) > Gaulish *Noua:tus > Latin *Noua:tus > Romance Novate: it
> works!
>
> Consequences
> 1) -ate-names mean indeed 'fords'
> 2) they really correspond to Irish áth-phrases and -ad-compounds
> 3) they are made of Celtic lexemes
> 4) they must have been generated *as compounds* before the Late IE
> loss of laryngeals (otherwise they would yield †-oggiate, not -ate)
> 5) as facts nn. 4-5 show, these place-names cannot have been
> trasferred from elsewhere (like e.g. York > New York), they are
> precisely place-names explicitly coined for their very places (unless
> the whole river net has been transplanted; but Lombard river names
> very rarely have correspondents North of the Alps, they don't belong
> to the Old European layer, they are rather 'Mediterranean')
> 6) therefore, pre-Late PIE was spoken in these places when these
> place-names have been coined
> 7) other compounded place-names in the same region with same
> compounding members (e.g. *bri:ua: 'bridge') show phonological
> treatments (e.g. neognós-rule) that imply the action of a Common PIE
> (not simply pre-PIE) phonological rule (it would have been no more
> operating as early as the Late IE phase)
> 8) these place-names have passed through the whole diachronic
> phonology from PIE to Gaulish
> 9) no trace of any other diachronic phonology can be found (Iike
> epigraphical evidence, see fact n° 6)
> 10) therefore, Cisalpine Celtic has directly developed from local
> PIE (the whole lexicon is Celtic; the whole diachronic phonology is
> Celtic; there's no trace of other phonologies)
> 11) since those 'Mediterranean' *river*-names can be etymologized
> through IE lexicon (and Celtic diachronic phonology) and alternative
> etymologies (e.g. Basque ones) are either much weaker on phonological
> ground or (more often) lack at all, those river-names cannot be
> considered as relics of pre-IE languages
>
> This is the first time in the History of Linguistics that one can
> *linguistically* demonstrate that PIE has been spoken in a specific
> place. (Note that this doesn't mean that PIE wasn't spoken in other
> regions; it only means that these regions belonged to the PIE Homeland
> - be it the precise Urheimat or not, in any case it was during the PIE
> phase and not later)
> (Kretschmer's Theory was anyway more weakly argumented.)
>
> Given these consequences, pairs like La:rius (Lake Como) (= Welsh
> llawr, bottom ground of a valley): *Pla:rius (> Piario [Bergamo]; on
> the bottom of its valley) are best explained as Celtic La:rius vs.
> 'Late IE' *Pla:rius. This coincides with Your view. If You doesn't
> like to lable such Late PIE 'Celtic', it's just a matter of
> terminology.
> The crucial point is that Late PIE *Pla:rius doesn't not represent
> a preceding linguistic layer, but simply an older phase. What You
> can't do is to infer that the whole area between Orobian Alps (where
> Piario is) and Maritime Liguria (where Porcobera flows) had non-Celtic
> features (like /ar/ from syllabic /r/) before the Celts, because such
> divergences in developments would have been registered in the PIE -ate
> names, which is not the case.
> So, You can only have 'not-yet-Celtic' (=
> 'never-become-fully-Celtic') features, but never 'anti-Celtic'
> features (i.e., features that would have had to come up as
> incoherences - if they had really taken place - in the diachronic
> phonologyu implied by -ate-names).
>
> You didn't know all this before.
> Now You can:
> a) refuse this theory and all other theories (You'll be a Skeptical)
> b) refuse this theory and accept weaker theories (You'll be incoherent)
> c) accept this theory and other theories as well (You'll be
> open-minded)
> d) accept this theory and reject other ones, incompatible with
> this one (You'll have changed Your mind)
>
>
>
>> DGK:
>> I do not have a convincing etymology for Ingauni, but that does not make
>> Patrizia's punk-rock 'Tattooed Ones' better than nothing. Serious
>> etymologists know their limitations. You do not, since you have already
>> bragged that you can Celticize any place-name I throw at you. Your
>> methodology does TOO MUCH, but I doubt that anyone can convince you of
>> the
>> folly of that.
>>
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Etymologists' limitation are, as far as I can see:
> i) lack of any comparison (e.g. in unknown linguistic areas)
> ii) lack of external linguistic data (e.g. for prehistoric
> Finland; we do have FU and, more generally, Uralic comparisons, we
> have IE comparisons, but we don't have ancient pieces of evidence)
> iii) lack of a specific diachronic phonology independently founded
> (e.g. for Thracian or Dacian: we have IE lexical comparisons, but no
> Thracian or Dacian lexicon - only names - so we must circularly build
> our diachronic phonology upon the etymologies we are proposing, since
> no other known diachronic phonology happens to work in this context
> with these comparisons)
> iv) irreductible competition of comparisons or external data or
> diachronic phonologies
>
> In the case of Liguria and Cisalpine Gaul, we do have comparisons
> (surely IE; maybe Basque; maybe something else as well); we do have
> external linguistic data (Celtic inscriptions); we can coherently
> apply Celtic diachronic phonology; we can also build other phonologies
> (Kretschmer's ones), based on less evidence and just on names.
> So, we have competing comparisons, univoque esternal linguistic
> data, and competing phonologies (but with different degrees of
> probability). Therefore, we can continue in producing PIE etymologies
> with Celtic diachronic phonology. We can, this is beyond doubt; are we
> also afforded to do that? This is Your real question.
> Your answer is 'no', this is clear. I'd like to know why, because
> I am not able to find - in this concrete case - an objective line not
> to be trespassed
>