Re: Volcae and Volsci

----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:13 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Volcae and Volsci


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
>
> Then I might have something tentative here wrt your request that I
> "factor up" PGermanic according to the various ethnic/cultural
> groups which were components in its genesis in Przeworsk (as I see
> it): The language of geminates, with cognates spread over Celtic,
> Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Baltic Finnic and partially Italic
> ==============
>
> This language of geminates does not exist.

Because?

Because we don't need an extra language
if we can just explain geminates with Celtic.
And we don't need ?a bird language either
because this is a general PIE feature
that also exists in Greek.
Arnaud

> Your repeated statements that it's not even PIE are unsupported.

Because?

Because it is Celtic
and Celtic is western PIE.
Arnaud

> It's just Celtic (or less probably osco-umbrian of course)

Because?

Because Celtic created geminates
out of the inherited sequence Glottal stop + Unvoiced
Arnaud

> *dub-
> I consider that dhu?-p is better

Because?

Because it explains the long vowels + unvoiced
alternating with short vowels plus voiced.
Arnaud

> and the existence of dhumb and stu?p
> are an obvious proof that this is PIE.

Because?

Because a root that can appear as
C_C or C_nC or s-C_C is obviously PIE.
Arnaud

> *dhu?p a Germanic root of PIE origin.

Because?

Because it is Germanic and because
it is morphologically PIE.
Arnaud

> This root follows the standard PIE affixation.
> Infix -n- and prefix -s-

-pp-/-mp-/-p-/-kk-/-nk-/-k- alternation is not Standard PIE.

We are dealing with the root which surfaces
in Germanic as *(s)-dhu?p or *(s)-dhupp-
with extra -n- in some cases.
There is no k here.
And your data is mixed with items
that have nothing to do with "immerge or soak".
Arnaud

>
> *kat-
> Germanic *hanti is a LW from Uralic *kom-t-(i)

It might be.

I was a bit desperate that
you may write some sensical.
Good news.
Arnaud

> There is no geminate at all here.

No geminate where?

In *hanti < *kom-t-(i)
Arnaud

> Arnaud
> ==========
>
> I suspect is the language of the Corded Ware culture. I can't see
> which other culture would span the area of those substrate loans. Of
> course the *kat- etc root, which its cognates outside of that area
> is likely to be a loan, some kind of sea-born connection to some
> Semitic language?
> ============
> This is multi-layered fancy.

Because?

A first fancy is to invent a couple of useless hypotheses
that can be explained with existing languages.
The second fancy is to invent substrates
to account for a LW from Uralic to Germanic
A third fancy is to imagine that inherited words
in Uralic like kom-t-i are sea-born LW from Semitic.
(Not really a fancy, more a psychiatrical absurdity)

> Nothing supports this castle of cards.

Because?

See above.
Arnaud

> =======
>
> As you can see, I suspect the Chatti, because of the name
> to have some connection to that substrate language; note the -tt- in
> the name, impossible for Celtic, Germanic and Italic, in which PIE
> *-tt- > -ss- (and in the other IE families > *-st-).
> Torsten
> ===========

> Celtic and Osco-umbrian are full of geminates
> resulting from phonotactical -?-C > -CC-
> and most H2-C > CC as well.

And?

This word can be explained with Celtic.
Arnaud

> Why is the word Chatti- impossible in Celtic ?

Chatti = Hesse, so we have an alternation here -tt-/-ss-. That's not
Celtic.
Torsten

Hessen is in the heartland of Celtic pre-historical location.
This statement is absurd from the start.
According to you, Bourges and Berry with -g- and -y- alternation
are not Celtic ?
And what about Hoch Deutsch and Platt Deutsch having
no clear-cut boundaries ?
Hessen is full in the middle of the HD / PD quagmire.
Arnaud