--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Gentlemen,
>
> I am afraid you are rejoicing a little bit too early.
>
> Kuhn's maps are interesting
> BUT
> 1. the coast-line was lying more to the south in old days
Data, please.
> 2. Kuhn has overlooked data :
> Instances of Condat and -ialos exist in higher numbers
> in the area where they allegedly "should not",
Data, please.
> 3. Kuhn's Celtic markers are not the only Celtic markers available.
> The area is just covered with Celtic markers, not taken into account
> by Kuhn.
If those markers you have in mind exist in large numbers northeast of
the Somme-Oise line, how come that those typical Celtic markers that
Kuhn investigated are so thinly represented there? How do you know
your 'Celtic markers' don't have cognates in Belgic? And what do you
think the, admittedly fuzzy, Somme-Oise border apparent on Kuhn's maps
represents?
> Henceforth,
>
> 1. I must tell you that I feel undaunted
I am duly impressed.
> 2. I am afraid that after we have filled up the holes in Kuhn's maps
> and put the coast-line in the right place,
> there is a clear risk that non-Celtic areas will be squeezed out.
Please go ahead. Knock yourself out.
> Next,
>
> I would like to ask Two questions about methodology :
> Q1 :
> Once place-names of Latin, Flemish, Frankish, Saxon are taken out of
> account, how much Celtic percentage is necessary to consider an area
> as Celtic ?
In order to consider an area solidly Celtic, it would have to have a
similar distribution of *typical* Celtic toponym-elements (eg those
Kuhn checked) as in areas we 'know' historically to have been solidly
Celtic, eg. central France.
> Q2 :
> How can a "Belgian" word be identified as being Belgian ?
That is a very good question, since Kuhn never set up criteria for
identifying Belgic toponyms and appelatives. However, he always
indicated the borders of the language of the NWBlock area as the
Weser-Aller rivers, the Harz mountains and the Somme-Oise line, ie.
the southern limit of his NWBlock language is identical to the one of
the Belgic language. I think the reason for that is his historical
sequence of interests: he was first interested in the NWBlock language
of his home region in NW Germany and only later in the southern border
of that area. So I think we might use a criteria of the NWBlock
language: initial p-, whether derivable from PIE or not (because
NWBlock is actually the residuals of several languages, one of which
is IE, which existed in the area only a short while, and one or
several pre-IE languages (Venneman's Semitic Atlantic, Basque-related
Vasconic?); further we should look in the Belgic area for duplicates
of names occuring in the non-Celt-suspicious, ie. northern part of the
NWBlock area.
Another thing which might be interesting is to check the French and
Flemish dialects northeast of the Somme-Oise line for cognates of
NWBlock words.
Now as for George's remark that Caesar identifies the Belgae as
invading Germani, we should remember that Tacitus mentions that those
they first thought were Germani really weren't and were later called
Tungri, in other words, they might have been pushed into Belgia from
then-existing NWBlock areas east of the Rhine by the 'real' Germani.
coming from the east.
> I have never seen an invading population leaving no clear traces of
> its presence.
> Franks, SAxons, Northmen, GAuls, Romans have left clear traces of
> their presence
> in the region we are talking about.
The Huns left almost no traces, except for the presence in some places
in France of the 'Asian spot', a birthmark on the lower back.
> If these "Belgians" have left no clear identifiably "Belgian"
> traces,
> they just do not exist.
> What "Belgian" traces do you claim ?
I'll upload some chapters on the archaeology of the area. Have a
little patience.
BTW, this is Lerchner (Studien zum nordwestgermanischen Wortschatz)'s
entry for 'pier':
"
pier 'regenworm, aardworm',
"ein recht alter Gemeinschaftsbesitz des
westfälisch-niederrheinisch-binnen-niederländischen Raumes", Foerste,
Westfalen 4, vgl. auch Kte. 1. Norwegische und schwedische Mundarten,
die das Wort auch kennen, weichen aber nach der Bedeutung ab:
'Makrele', 'kleine Forelle', dazu auch märk, und niederberg.
'Fischchen'. piermade, pierlorke 'Regenwurm' an Ohre und Elbe stammt
aus ostwestlichem Vorstoß, K. Bischoff, Elbostfälische Studien 43. So
werden auch die pyr 'Regenwurm', pyrâs 'Regenwurm zum Fischköder' in
Schellers Wörter-buch zu erklären sein, die Rosenfeld Nd.Jb. 71/73,
302f. mitteilt. piers 'a lony, reddish-coloured worm found under the
ebb-stones' auf den Shetlands schließt an das Nordische an. Mit
-k-Suffix steht daneben pirek 'Regenwurm' in Geldern-Overijssel, im
Köln-Aachener Raum und Westfalen, dies nach Sperlbaum 43f. nicht
diminuierend.
"
It is true that Meid sees the apparent kW > p as indication that the
word is somehow from p-Celtic, but I think is possible that
NWBlock/Belgic both had preserved IE p- and in some cases
(dialectically?) kW > p, cf.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48465
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/34695
Torsten