Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > Hamp read it as a burial poem, which it obviously is, as in Celtic,
> with Lepontic < Celtic. Combining our interpretations:
> >
> > Pelkui pruiam Teu karite, is^os kalite palam
> > Belgu:i bru:yam De:wu: karite, is^os kalite pallam
> > Belgo-for tomb/grave De:won- made, he raised (grave) stone
> > De:won- made Belgo- the grave, he raised the stone
> >
> Belgu-i pruia-m Deu karite, is´os kalite palam
>
> Devo- made (this) tomb for Belgo-, himself raised the stone.
>
> The puzzling thing is the first sentence is OSV, while the second is
> SVO.
>
> > Belgu:i the (d) of a (m) name < ~ Belgae
> >
> That's OK. However, in despite of some attempts, the ethonym Belgae
> doesn't look to be Celtic at all, but IMHO it could be related to the
> Gaulish ethnonym Volcae, from *uolco- 'hawk' (cfr. Welsh gwalch, Latin
> falco:) < *g^wel-k-.

There's no reason it can't be Celtic. Either

bolgaim = swell MIr; belgan = be angry OE;

or

*shining > bal~gans = whitish Latv;

and in typically-formed IE names: Belgius, Bólgios .

> > is^os = he < *sos , ì+ (clitic) ?
> >
> Possibly related to Latin ipse, ipsum, thus 'himself'.

It shouldn't be trans. 'himself', just 'he' with the specification that it's the same person referred to previously (in the sentence), possibly with various other strictures we can't see from the limited data. It's the i- that adds this specification, and Hamp probably related it to iti (thinking that s^ < ts , but I think it's just s^ < s after i, etc.).

>
> > palam {pallam} (a) = stone (mt, grave , etc. ?)
> > (see: all = rock/cliff OIr; pélla Hes G; pétra = rock,
> pétros = stone G; etc. )
> >
> As I said before, this can't be IE at all (much less Celtic), although
> it could be still distantly related to *pel-s- (the Greek forms don't
> belong here).

Celtiberian retained p also. Some environments caused p > kW (later kW > p in some), not fully understood yet, too. There's no reason to assume any other origin.

>
> Given this evidence, it's unlikely Lepontic would be a Celtic language,

The evidence shows it is Celtic, as many linguists can see.

> although certainly is IE. As in the case of Ligurian, the confusion has
> been raised by the attestation of a variety of Gaulish in the area.
>
> > The presence of p is not against this if the common Celtic change
> was p > pF ,
> >
> What does pF stand for?

A bilabial affricate (F = phi).

> > with most dia. pF > F > xW , etc.
> >
> I beg your pardon?
>

Most Celtic shows p- > (h)- and -p- > -w-, just like Armenian, and pt > xt but wtH in Armenian, which allows an intermediate p>F>xW to be reconstructed.