Re Re: Fw: [tied] Pferd

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
> Basically, when I wrote this
> I was meaning several points :
> 1. Paris can be derived from good P-celt Gaulish *kwr-s- "oak"

Hm.

> 2. I reject the proposed *par-is- "People on the Oise" as totally
> impossible.

Because?

> This meaning should be phoned "ar-isari (kos)"

> 3. I consider most tribes in the north of Paris to be good "P-celt"
> GAuls

On what grounds?

>especially in the Somme, Oise, and Artois departments.

The p-Celts were especially good in the Somme, Oise, and Artois
departments? Were they less good elsewhere?

> I am extremely skeptical as far as this dichotomy between Gauls and
> Belgians is concerned

I understand it must be a shock for a Frenchman to realize that his
capital is Belgian. Maybe future excavations on the Île de la Cité
will close the question by yielding a petrified frenchfrie with mayo.

> Because I consider in the first place that this word "GAul" is
> ethnolinguistically unclear

Caesar would be unhappy to learn you doubt his words.

> And this "Belgian" hypothesis sounds even more shaky.

Gallia divisa est in partes tres.

> Especially when "Belgians" are put in these places where you are
> about sure these are good P-celt Gauls.

You are a very sure person. Could you corroborate with a p-less
etymology for an IE place name in Belgic territory?


Torsten