--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> Hm. Let me reconstruct this conversation.
> 1. You suggest Celtic influence in *wal-/*gal- in Polish and
Russian
> place names.
> 2. I suggest the root might have to with -gal- in Lat-gal- and
> (sorry!) Zem-gal-.
> 3. You go absolutely ballistic and claim that even excentrics
> wouldn't Celtic connections for *gal-.
May be that's because of my poor English that I can't explain myself
adequately enough, thus I'll try to use the standard technique that's
usually applied in such cases - I'll change the wording. My personal
practice shows two or three iterations will usually do.
(Another guess would be that you just didn't read what I wrote
carefully enough).
My version of what has happened is:
You offered a new etymology for -gal- in *lat(-gal)- and *z'e(i)m-gal-
.
I tried to draw your attention to the fact that no one of the
linguists which analyzed the issue has supposed that this -gal-
reflexes Celtic influence (to exclude any ipse dixit impression, I
added a brief of their opinions), and that even Schmid with his a bit
eccentric hypotheses suppose *genetic* relationship of Baltic *-gal-
and some Celtic forms (see my posting), he doesn't suppose that this -
gal- indicate a Celtic origin of the *lat(-gal)- and z'e(i)m-gal-.
I noted explicitly that this is not a brief of *my opinions* -
ballistic or not, I haven't claimed anything whatsoever yet - I just
tried to prepare the ground for a discussion. I didn't say "gal- in
the Western Ukrain is OK because that's my suggestion, -gal- in the
Baltic languages is wrong because that's Torsten's suggestion". If
you please, I'll give *my* opinion in the next posting after we have
straightened a misunderstanding.
I also guessed that it would be clear from my posting that -gal- is
optional in *lat(-gal)- and that an etymological chain most probably
might have been *lat-:*let- 'tribonym' > *lat-gal- 'toponym
("Latmark")' > 'alternative tribonym'. This is not my opinion on the
origin of -gal- yet, just a note.
By placing a paragraph on *gal-ind- in my posting I tried to
carefully remind you that you didn't commented this tribonym (despite
my polite invitation to).
> You are a very strange man, Sergei.
This is offtopic, Torsten.
> On the other hand I recall having reacted the same way when Piotr
> suggested the Danes were not autochthonous. But as you can see, I
now
> live happily with the idea of Danes roaming all over Europe and
Asia
> (and Africa?). Perhaps an example to emulate?
I don't understand. Your idea probably is that I'm x-centric (x for
some ethnos?) and that x-centrism makes me unhappy when I hear that
some Balts are of the Celtic origin? I'm anxious to know if I guessed
right. Your example is impressive, but is it relevant?
>
> As I recall having read (was it in a Lonely Planet guide?) Latvian
> replaced Livonian (Baltic Finnic) in large ares of Latvia in
> historical times.
>
But you talked about *z'e(i)m-gal-, not *lat-gal-. Could you clarify
your point of view: what was the role of the Celts, the Balto-Finnic
tribes and the Balts? Who replaced who in ethnical terms? In
linguistic terms? I don't know what this Lonely Planet guide is, I
used mostly P. Dini's synopsys (issued last year, 600 pages of rather
meaty text) of the Baltic studies to prepare the brief.
The last note, before you start shooting :) . I gathered some
interesting facts about Dano-Baltic contacts, especially those
between the Danes and the Curonians (which make me attend to what
Saxo says about the Danes and the *Curetes). Please let me know in
case you're interested.
Sergei