Re: Ir. cas(s) and IE models (was: Ligurian)

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

>
> > Sure, there can be many linguistic layers in a given place, although

the

> > most ancient ones would only be detectable in toponymy or not

detectable

> > at all. But the fact is Celtic doesn't represent the oldest layer

but

> > one of the most recent ones, as there're older strata detectable.
>
> I've detected PIE through toponymy and it's the direct ancestor of
> Celtic in situ.
>

Sorry, but this is contradicted by actual evidence. Celtic has shared
isoglosses with Eastern IE languages, namely Greek and Indo-Iranian. See
Karl Horst Schmidtt for more details. Also Old European Hydronymy (OEH)
isn't Celtic at all.

> > If you really want to gather evidence of older IE stages, I'd

recommend

> > you study other language families which were in contact with IE or
> > genetically related to it, namely Altaic, Kartvelian, Afrasian

(Semitic)

> > and Tyrrhenian (Etruscan). I myself learnt a great deal from Bomhard

(as

> > well as other Nostraticists), in despite I disagree with his model.
>
> That's what I'm doing since 1989 (when I started to study

Macrocomparativism)

>

But it doesn't appear to have any impact on your theory.

> > In Alinei's mind, in-situ-developments
> >> start from Post-Proto-Italic phase
> >>
> > I'm sure you mean "Italoid" ("Italide" in the Italian original),

which

> > he places in the Gravettian (!).
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> I've translated Alinei's "Italid" / "Italoid" (in his words,
> "Italoide" and "Ibero-Adriatico" / "Ibero-Dalmatico" as labels have
> been all replaced by "Italide") into "Italic", which at the
> phonological level is its perfect equivalent and is more widely known.
>

I strongly disagree. As an IE language, "Italoid" is synonym to
"Sorothaptic" and "Illyro-Lusitanian", thus a very different thing than
Italic, which is specifically the group of Latin and Sabellic
(Osco-Umbrian).

> Peter Schrijver, The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in
> Latin (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 2, Series edited by R[obert]
> S[tephen] P[aul] Beekes, A[lexander] Lubotsky, J[oseph] J[ohannes]
> S[icco] Weitenberg), Amsterdam - Atlanta (Georgia), Editions Rodopi
> B.V. [Printed in The Netherlands], 1991 [xl, 616 p.], ISBN
> 90-5183-308-3 (CIP).
> See in particular pp. 486-504 (VI. Latin a of non-laryngeal origin. E.
> Remaining instances of non-laryngeal a), rule *(C)CCCC > (C)CaCCC and
> analysis of pandere 'to spread'
>

Very interesting, as I've posited myself Latin pannus is a foreign
loanword related to pendere, but now I see pandere would be more
appropriate. Unfortunately, I've got no access to this publication.