[tied] Re: Pre-Germanic speculation

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

> 29-10-03 13:36, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > ... Borgund (Borgundærholm > Bornholm) ...
> >
> > For some weird reason they have same suffixes (-s, -ind, -und) as

the

> > supposed Anatolian placenames in Greece (-ssos, -inthos, -unthos),
>
> They are not necessarily Anatolian. <-(i)sso-> can come from more

than

> one source and <-inthos> could well be Thracian. In either case

we're

> dealing with IE suffixes. Germanic *-und- comes from PIE *-n.t-ó-,

i.e.

> a thematised present participle.
>
> > but the roots of the names are not recognizably IE (or anything),
> > except for the Wanderwort *burg- (Greek pyrgos) (according to

EIEC),

>
> It's the indubitably IE root *bHerg^H- 'increase, grow strong',

with

> derivatives like *bHerg^Hos 'rock, mountain, barrow' (Gmc. *berga-

),

> *bHr.g^H-u-, *bHr.g^H-(o)nt- 'high, tall, lofty, large'. The name

of the

> Burgundians corresponds _exactly_ to that of the Celtic Brigantes

(both

> derive from *bHr.g^H-n.t-, and both are cognate to Skt. bRha(n)t-)

The

> meaning is something like 'big guys'.
>

Which of course is not related to 'pyrgos'.

> > and possibly *sam- of Samsø, which might be taken, together with

the

> > Samland peninsula of East Prussia, to be related to Suomi and

Saami,

> > and therefore Finno-Ugric (Saami?) relic areas?
>
> Why do you insist on *sam- being non-IE? And if it's related to

Suomi,

> why does it have a historically short vowel?
>

How did you get from my "possibly" and "might be" to your "insist"?

Torsten