From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 49668
Date: 2007-08-26
----- Original Message -----From: tgpedersenSent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:48 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme> 2. Kuhn has overlooked data :
> Instances of Condat and -ialos exist in higher numbers
> in the area where they allegedly "should not",
Data, please.
======================================It will take some time to improve and check these maps.========================================
> 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?
====================================1. Kuhn overlooked data and those "typical" markers are too few and some are questionable.
2. Dunum : Northern France is rather flat lowland : this does not help when you want to build a Dunum : a fortress on a mountain. As you can see, the examples are located in those hilly areas where a dunum makes sense.
Verne tree : This is more a southern French word, even though it is supposed to be "gaulish" : I had to check what it means exactly on the web : we have plenty of Aulnoy/Aulnaie instead in Northern France. I suppose if you mix Verne + Aulnoy the picture will be different. People named Lavergne are southerners.
Nant : I will not claim this word to be "Gaulish" : it looks like "ar" river. I would rather consider this word to be a Paleo-European (pre-indo-european) word. Does this word have clear cognates in Irish and Welsh ?
3. Before we start speculating about a "border", we first need something more solid on which we can make up our mind.
==========================================================
> 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.
==================================I speak Northern French dialect and my parents too. I also have a couple of books about Fishermen talk and Peasant dialect spoken in 62 and 76 departments written in the XIX century and another one even older.
If you have a list of NWB words, I can try to check.
Boulogne/mer's library has some old dialectal books that may be worth checking.
My Flemish amounts to about nothing...
==================================================
> 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.
==============================I meant an invading and settling population, not just hit and run people.
==========================
BTW, this is Lerchner (Studien zum nordwestgermanische n Wortschatz)' s
entry for 'pier':
"
pier 'regenworm, aardworm',
"ein recht alter Gemeinschaftsbesitz des
westfälisch-niederrh einisch-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