Re: Cimbri

>
> I've read and reread those postings, but as far as I can see his
> argument hinges on:
> 1) There was no *com-brogia in Common Celtic times (??? - absence

of

> evidence etc). Why wouldn't any Celt at the time have hit on the

idea

> of combining those two words? Why is that so certain?
> 2) *com-brogia must have been coined at Welsh-Cumbrian times and
> therefore cannot have existed earlier. This argument rests on the
> assumption that compounds are never re-formed, when phonological
> development renders its various parts unrecognizable. That is false.
> 3) Much table-thumping.

--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:

> Well, *com-brogi: is a _possible_ Common Celtic word (though

unattested). But how do you propose to relate it to
Kimmerioi/Gimirra:ja, or to Cimbri, for that matter? (Remember, Cymru
is a Modern Welsh word).

>
> Thump!
>
> Piotr

Give me a break! That will have to wait until my "Cimbro-Cimmerian
Comparative Grammar" appears.
Should we consider Gomer now also? I thought that was only for neo-
something airheads?
And I am happy to learn that they build sturdy and reliable tables in
Poland. ;-)

Torsten