From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49499
Date: 2007-08-11
> Basically, when I wrote this____________________________________________________________________________________
> I was meaning several points :
> 1. Paris can be derived from good P-celt Gaulish
> *kwr-s- "oak"
> 2. I reject the proposed *par-is- "People on the
> Oise" as totally impossible.
> This meaning should be phoned "ar-isari (kos)"
> 3. I consider most tribes in the north of Paris to
> be good "P-celt" GAuls
> especially in the Somme, Oise, and Artois
> departments.
>
> I am extremely skeptical as far as this dichotomy
> between Gauls and Belgians is concerned
> Because I consider in the first place that this word
> "GAul" is ethnolinguistically unclear
> And this "Belgian" hypothesis sounds even more
> shaky.
> Especially when "Belgians" are put in these places
> where you are about sure these are good P-celt
> Gauls.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stlatos
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:02 AM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Fw: [tied]
> Pferd
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
>
> > As for Paris, and Oise River,
>
> > Some tribe names are based on tree names,
> > so my own explanation :
> > Parisi < *kwr-s-i : those of the oak (Root
> *kwrs-u oak)
> > Carnuti < those of the hornbeam tree
> > Eburi < those of the yew
>
> Parisi might be from a derivative of 'oak', but
> what suggests this
> specifically?
>
>
>
>