Re: pottus, Genua, Durantia (was: Bart; was: Ligurian)

2012/6/12, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>:

> Gentlepersons:
> I like what you are doing. It is very instructive for those of us who don't
> have the time or access to resources. I'm very pleased to see you do this,
> in general, in a very civilized manner.
> Can you take a breather and sum up a few issues?
> As I understand, you're relating Lepontic and Ligurian to Lusitanian and
> whatever predecessors it had in S and C France and E Spain --or not?
> I'm unsure if Lepontic hooks up with IE Rhaetic, Venetic and Illyrian. I
> wonder about any links to NWB and Torsten's Venetic.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

Summing up, the whole issue implies:
1) a controversy about Ligurian and, potentially, Lusitanian
(although we don't have mentioned this latter and I hope no one will
open such a chapter unless starting a new thread), DGK considering
them as separate IE languages, I as 'incompletely Celticized' Late IE
dialects;
2) a controversy (differed to other threads) about Lepontic, DGK
identifying it with his Ligurian, I with a Southern dialect (in
Schrijver's sense) of Central Celtic (in Klingenschmitt's terminology)
3) a controversy about onomastic, non-epigraphical Rhaetic, DGK
considering it a separately innovating IE language, I as a Late
Italo-Celtic residue;
4) no controversy about Venetic or Daco-Mysian (better Daco-Moesian)
or Thracian;
5) different uses of the term "Illyrian" and a partially different
frame of the origin of Albanian;
6) no mention of NWB or of a Northern Central European Venetic, apart
from an implicit loose inclusion of both into the maximalistically
stratigraphical approach to European linguistic prehistory I've
mentioned when writing about two exteme, but still correct procedures
of classifying the evidence of those chronological phases;
7) a different - because chronological rather than genealogical -
controversy about the relative precedence of Celtic and hypothetical
other (IE) languages in Cisalpine Gaul, S and C France and E Spain,
whereas I maintain local Celtic has everywhere evolved in situ from
PIE, while DGK seems to put Celtic always as latest phase in whatever
area (therefore leaving no place even for restricted Proto-Celtic
Urheimat)

> ________________________________
> From: dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] pottus, Genua, Durantia (was: Bart; was: Ligurian)
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/6/7, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2012/5/23, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---
>> >> > DGK again:
>> >> > I misread the map index. Bart is on the French side of the border
>> >> > in
>> >> > De'p.
>> >> > Doubs, doubtless identical with the one you found. This is still in
>> >> > the
>> >> > area where Ligurian place-names are to be expected. J.
>> >> > De'chelette's
>> >> > "Ligure Transalpine" includes Provence, Dauphine', and Savoie, not
>> >> > archaeologically Celticized until the La Te`ne period. I would
>> >> > extend
>> >> > "Greater Liguria" further north to include the watersheds of the
>> >> > Sao^ne,
>> >> > Ain, and Doubs, Alsace-Lorraine, and probably the whole Mosel-Rhein
>> >> > interfluve up to Koblenz.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dibio (Dijon) and Vesontio (Besanc,on) look to me like Ligurian
>> >> > formations,
>> >> > recalling Avenio (Avignon) and Arausio (Orange) in Provence. I can
>> >> > find
>> >> > no
>> >> > Celtic reflexes of *dHeigW- in Matasovic', which would be suitable
>> >> > for
>> >> > Dibio. On the other hand Matisco (Ma^con) is a Gaulish formation,
>> >> > 'la
>> >> > ville
>> >> > des Matisci, des bonnes gens' (P. Lebel, Ann. Acad. Ma^con 33:21,
>> >> > 1938),
>> >> > which itself recalls Gallo-Latin Taurisci 'Mountaineers', evidently
>> >> > built on
>> >> > Lig. *tauro- 'mountain', but with -isc- not -asc-, not a Lig.
>> >> > formation.
>> >> > And obviously Lug(u)dunum 'Lyon' is Gaulish. Not everything in
>> >> > "Greater
>> >> > Liguria" is necessarily Ligurian in origin, I readily admit.
>> >> >
>> >> > Borbetomagus (Worms-am-Rhein) has already been discussed; I am in
>> >> > favor
>> >> > of
>> >> > Lig. *Borm- here. Gallo-Latin <-pottus> '-potter' in inscriptions
>> >> > of
>> >> > Trier
>> >> > and westward could be regarded as a Lig. loan if Lig. underwent
>> >> > Kluge's
>> >> > assimilation. That is, alongside PIE *po'd-om 'earthen container'
>> >> > (OE
>> >> > <faet> 'cask, vat', etc.) I would posit *pod-no's 'maker of earthen
>> >> > containers, potter' > Lig. *pottos, through Treveran Gaulish to G-L
>> >> > *pottus.
>> >> > The term for 'pot' reflected in Romance, G-L *pottum (?) might have
>> >> > been
>> >> > extracted from *potta:ria nt. pl. 'potter's works, pottery'.
>> >>
>> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> >> Your opinion on Greater Liguria is very interesting, but You'll
>> >> concede that this is simply the sum of Your hypotheses; it has per se
>> >> nothing more than a clarifiying value.
>> >> Using two suffixes as guides for the presece of two separate
>> >> languages is too optimistic. In such a way You could postulate,
>> >> associating suffixes with hypothetically different vocalic outputs of
>> >> PIE ablaut, a substrate for every suffix. There's no need of many
>> >> arguments; I've already mentioned the kind of argument I'd promptly
>> >> accept - a notorious compound formation like e.g. *Medhyo-plh2nom in a
>> >> clearly non-Celtic innovating form like e.g. Mefiopla:nom (whose -
>> >> theoretically always possible - competing Celtic explanation would
>> >> require more ad hoc constructions).
>> >> My own proposal for pottus, pottum: PIE *kup-o-tnH-ó-s (with
>> >> neognós
>> >> laryngeal deletion and Celtic Stokes' = Germanic Kluge's Law)
>> >> 'extender of cups', *kup-o-tnH-ó-m 'extension of a cup' > Celtic
>> >> *kuottos, *kuottom > *kwottos, *kwotton > Gaulis *pottos, *potton.
>>
>> > DGK:
>> > I do not see how to delete the root-laryngeal implied by Skt. <ku:pa->;
>> > that
>> > is, a (formally full-grade) *keuh{x}p- 'hollow, cup, etc.'
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> You have no need to delete it; the root itself has vacillating
>> length of /u/ and, since it has many different enlargements (IEW
>> 588-592), it's almost evident that e.g. Czech kep etc. (I beg Your
>> pardon) < Proto-Slavic kÑŠpÑŠ (k"p") < PIE *kup-o-s, Old English, Middle
>> English hoppe, Latin cuppa (> Romance coppa) are based on √*keu- +
>> *-p- while <ku:pa-> is on √*keu- + *-H- * -p-

> DGK:
> You are conflating two roots, *keuh{x}p- 'hollow, hole, cup, etc.' and
> *keuph1- 'pile, heap, hill, etc.' (Av. <kaofo:> 'mountain'). Lat. <cuppa>
> against <cu:pa> is to be explained like <Juppiter> from the voc. sg.
> *Ju:-piter, as a (Sabino-Latin) dialectism.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
no, I'm not: *keuph2- (why *keuph1-?) is Pokorny's *keu-p- b. (1959:
591), while hoppe etc. are under *keu-p- a. (ibid.; and I don't think
You'd put MEngl. hoppe under 'heap' rather than under 'hole')

>> > DGK:
>> > Regarding a non-Celtic innovation, I believe we have one in Genua, Lig.
>> > *Genua:, from *genewa: or *genowa: '(town) on the corner (of the
>> > Ligurian
>> > Sea)', PIE *g^enu- 'corner, angle; knee; jaw'. That is, before *-wa(:)-
>> > a
>> > SHORT vowel is lost with subsequent vocalization of */w/ to /u/.
>> > (Gena:va
>> > has a LONG vowel and a different formation, along with Fundus Gena(:)via
>> > of
>> > course.)
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> Be careful please: Latin <Genua> > Tuscan Genova (like Mantua >
>> Mantova and other instances of -ua < *-owa:) is to be read ['gɛnuwa]
>> (otherwise it would have yielded Tuscan †Genva, Genoese †Zeva) and
>> has
>> non-stressed */o/ > /u/ raising in open syllable before /w/, so the
>> Ligurian form must have been *Genowa: exatcly what You have written
>> before (i.e. without) any supposedly Ligurian non-Celtic innovation.
>> Gena:ua is of course a different formation, a vrddhi one:
>> *G'enh1/2o:wah2 (*h1 or *h2 according to the etymology: *g'enh1- if
>> 'Natives' place', *g'enh2- if 'Corner' ('Knee') or 'Mouth' ('Jaw'))

> DGK:
> Not necessarily; we have *-a:vo- outside of Celtic. No compelling need for
> vr.ddhi.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Of course, always not necessarily; the etymology *G'enh1/2o:wah2
explains Gena:ua as ablaut variant to *G'enh1/2owah2 (> Genua), while
the etymology *G'enh1/2-ah2-wah2 explains Gena:ua as secondary
derivate of a primary formation *G'enh1/2-ah2, itself different from
*G'enh1/2-u- whence secondary *G'enh1/2owah2 (> Genua), i.e. in my
etymology Gena:ua and Genua (both names for Geneva) are immediately
linked together, while in Your one they are barely different derivates
of different primary formations on the same (?) root.
What matters is the reconstruction of the pre-rofm of Genua

> DGK:

I used to agree with Lig. *Genowa: based on the earliest Greek form,
but I no longer find it necessary, and I believe I can answer your
other objections in a few days (why Gen. Zena, etc.).


Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

I myself can't find any time to answer quickly; there are too much
messages and there's too much work to do

>> > DGK:
>> > Thus the river Druantia in Liguria Transalpina (now Durance) can be
>> > equated
>> > with Skt. Dravanti: 'Running (River)' f. from *drew-n.tih2, with the
>> > same
>> > Lig. innov. absent from Celtic. Likewise the smaller rivers Drance
>> > (*Druantia) in Kt. Wallis, and Durance in De'p. Manche, with Drouance
>> > in
>> > De'p. Calvados, Normandie. That is, Greater Liguria stretched across
>> > Gaul
>> > until it was split by Gaulish invasion and expansion from the south
>> > (cf.
>> > Liv. 5:34). Genabum (later Aureliani, now Orleans) in central Gaul does
>> > not
>> > follow Joseph's Law and must be pre-Celtic.
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> again the same disregard for ablaut. Nothing excludes a
>> straightforward *Dru-n.t.i(a)h2 (with Lindeman anlaut /druw-/) >
>> Druantia. Joseph's Law is stress-sensitive (cf. Irish ben 'woman' <
>> *gwenh2) and therefore Genabum simply reflects ['genabon]

> DGK:
> What clear parallels do you have of Lindemann's anlaut actually occurring in
> Celtic?
>

Piotr:

Lindeman variants are not found in polysyllabic words. As far as I can
see, the *expected* PIE syllabification of /CRG-/ (C = obstruent, R =
liquid, G = glide) before a syllabic segment was [CRG.G-], not [CR.G-]
(e.g. *trijo-, *druwo- rather than *tr.jo-, *dr.wo-). In other words,
*druwn.t-ih2 would have been a perfectly normal feminine participle
formed to the root *dreu- (=> *druwént-).
(...)

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
This is precisely what I meant. I've purposedly avoided to write
"Lindeman's variant", because I know it's limited to monosyllables.
With "Lindeman anlaut" I meant [CRG.G-] (maybe I should have preferred
"Sievers anlaut")

> DGK:

Greek <ge'ranos> 'crane' corresponds to Celtic *garano-, so
first-syllable stress does not block Joseph's Law.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I limit myself to references: de Bernardo Stempel 1987: 155, Schrijver
1995: 79-80 ("The assumption of a full grade root for Celtic is by no
means compelling"); Celtic *garanu- (note *-u- stem: plural -au) can
equally well represent *g'rh2-h1n-u- and *g'rh2-enu-


DGK:
On this model we should expect *ge'nabo- > Celt. +ganabo-. The stress
probably WAS there, because the /a/ in this place-name is short.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I'm sorry, I can't understand the correlation between accent and vowel
quantity in YOUR frame

DGK:
Irish <ben> does not reflect the root-noun *gWenh2 (which does appear
as <be'>, usually neuter; cf. Gmc. 'wife'). Ir. <ben> continues Celt.
*bena: which, if it was formed like the Greek nom. sg. <gune':>,
reflects oxytone *gWen-e'h2.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I don't understand why not barytone *gW'en-ah2; Greek gun'e: is from
*gW(o)n-'ah2, not from *gWen-

DGK:
But no conclusions can be drawn about Joseph's Law from this noun,
which is subject to analogical levelling (e.g. Gaul. gen. pl.
<bnanom>, <mnanom> with extra -n- from acc. pl. *bnas, <mnas>).

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Why not gen. pl. *-n-om?

DGK:
That is, the vowel of <ben>, IF it was altered to /a/ by J.'s Law,
COULD have been restored by the vowel of the neuter <be'>. The same
goes for <-bena> in Gaul. personal names. This business of conditions
for J.'s Law might well be discussed separately from our feud.

DGK


Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
As You want; it would be pointless to our question, because You
interpret Gaulish and maybe even Insular Celtic counterexamples to
Joseph's Law as Ligurian relics, while I prefer to restrict the Law
itself (even at the cost of assuming that Greek g'eranos and Celtic
*garanu- exhibit different ablaut grades; You too have in any case to
assume that Greek g'eranos and Germanic *krana(n)- m. are from
different ablaut grades, whereas I'm not compelled to it, so we both
have to admit ablaut differences)