Re: Tor/Tur/(e)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Marco Moretti" wrote:

>>> In Celtic there's really no /dur/ "water".
>>
>> Really-really? Would you like to bet on that?!
>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/institutes/sassi/spns/WatsIndex2.htm
>> could bring you more information on the topic. See also "Dordogne"
>> in which the first element is the very same Celtic "dur".
>
> This /dur-/ is substratum, and pre-IE in its ultimare origin.

I did not make any comment on origin of Celtic water-words. I
simply aknowledged "dur" is one of them. Oh, and BTW, French
substratum in "Dordogne" _is_ Celtic and it happens that the
toponym means "fast (water) stream". In Celtic. So much about
use of the word in ancient Celtic.

>>> Hydronyms in /dur-/ or /tur-/ are unrelated
>>
>> Maybe. Or maybe not. It is of no use to state emphatically they
>> aren't related. There are several "dur-" like Celtic words, the
>> water-word "d(h)obhar" equally has the version "-twr", there is
>> also "tur" `dry` in Celtic: any of these is a better candidate
>> for the root in "Turicum" than "Thor".
>
> First
> They are unrelated, otherwise phonetics wouldn't match.

Oops, I smell a big misunderstanding:

> The Celtic words is from /dhub-/ - /*dheub-/.
> We have no instances of /br/ becoming /r/.

There is no possible debate about existence in Celtic of "dur"
`water`, regardless of its ultimate origin. The only phonetic
question is whether /d/ > /t/ is likely to have happened in
derivation of Latin "Turicum" from a Celtic word. Existence
even in Celtic of a version with unvoiced /t/ instead of /d/
suggests this simple mutation could have already taken place
in local Celtic spoken in the area. So "dur-" and "tur-" parts
in hydronyms could very simply be related by (de)voicing.
I fail to see what's that /br/ > /r/ stuff about.

> Second I never seid that /tur-/ /tor-/ toponyms are for Thor.
> It is simply a Torsten's daydreaming that I dismiss with disgust.

... but Taurinum > Torino escaped strangely to your attention.

>>> and I think them related to Basque /iturri/ "source", itself of
>>> unknown origin (I can't find any credible link).
>>
>> Oh, I didn't knew there were plenty of Basques in the Alps at
>> 15 B.C.
>
> First
> Basque was related to a number of substratum languages, even so far
> as in the Alps.

Of course. Around 15 B.C. these substratum languages were still
flourishing and an ideal source of toponyms for Latins having
decided to build a city. Unfortunately, the inhabitants were
Celtic, not quite pre-IE substratum.

> Second
> A toponym attested in 15 B.C. can be much older. We still use to
> call a city Rome, but this toponym goes back to Etruscan times.

Of course. Latins took the name from the guys they found in the
neighbouring area ab urbe condita. These were Etruscans. As well
as they found Celts in the area of Turicum from which they have
most likely took the name in 15 B.C.

>>> /-i:cum/ is a Latinized ending for Celtic /*-i:kon/ with a
>>> long vowel. In Lombardy and in France there is a plenty of
>>> toponyms with the same Celtic ending.
>>
>> So?!
>
> Study a little toponymy.

Maybe I'm not clear. What is the relevance of this information
about /-i:cum/ < /-i:kon/ in the context of the discussion between
me and Torsten? Thank you for your kind & useless suggestion.

>>> Celtic for "thunder" and "Thor" was /Taranis/, /Taranus/.
>>> It's undeniable. And this argument should put an end to
>>> anacronisms and rave.
>>
>> Which anacronisms are you speaking about?!
>
> The anachronism I speak about is that assumed by Torsten.
> I simply said:
> Thor is a recent form, derived from the regular evolution of
> *Thunaraz.
> Toponyms in /tur-/ /tor-/ are very old.
> So Torsten's idea of connecting the two thing is anachronistic.

I see, "anachronism" is a label (one from a sea of possibilities)
for Torsten's thesis.

Well, that would be all.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi