Re: Volcae and Volsci

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

>
>
> ----- 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.

These complexes have more alternations than just
geminate/non-geminate. Therefore we need another language.

> And we don't need ?a bird language either
> because this is a general PIE feature
> that also exists in Greek.

What is?

> Arnaud
>
> > Your repeated statements that it's not even PIE are unsupported.
>
> Because?
>
> Because it is Celtic and Celtic is western PIE.

That's no answer. That's a repetition of your unsupported claim.

> > It's just Celtic (or less probably osco-umbrian of course)
>
> Because?
>
> Because Celtic created geminates out of the inherited sequence

Glottal stop + Unvoiced

See above.

> Arnaud
>
> > *dub-
> > I consider that dhu?-p is better
>
> Because?
>
> Because it explains the long vowels + unvoiced
> alternating with short vowels plus voiced.

It does not explain the nasal.

> 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.

A root that alternates -pp-/-mp/-p-/-kk-/-nk-/-k- is obviously not IE.

> Arnaud
>
> > *dhu?p a Germanic root of PIE origin.
>
> Because?
>
> Because it is Germanic and because
> it is morphologically PIE.

> Arnaud

See above.

> > 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.

Surfaces? What does that mean?

> There is no k here.

Yes, there is.

> And your data is mixed with items
> that have nothing to do with "immerge or soak".
> Arnaud

Which?

> >
> > *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
>

Semantically "side, flank" > "cover, protection", Celtic *kassi-,
related to Chatti.

> > 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.

Cannot.

> The second fancy is to invent substrates
> to account for a LW from Uralic to Germanic

They are necessary.

> A third fancy is to imagine that inherited words
> in Uralic like kom-t-i are sea-born LW from Semitic.

I might have to split it in two.

> (Not really a fancy, more a psychiatrical absurdity)

I thought Miguel told you to keep your ad hominems to yourself?

> > 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.

Which Celtic word is it then?

> > 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.

Hessen is not a Celtic word.

> This statement is absurd from the start.

Because?

> According to you, Bourges and Berry with -g- and -y- alternation
> are not Celtic ?

I never claimed that.

> And what about Hoch Deutsch and Platt Deutsch having
> no clear-cut boundaries ?

But they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benrath_line

> Hessen is full in the middle of the HD / PD quagmire.
> Arnaud

Hessen is south of both the Benrath and Speyer lines.


Torsten