Re[2]: [tied] V-, B-

At 6:33:17 PM on Friday, June 20, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 3:09:25 PM on Thursday, June 19, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

>>> 1)
>>> What's the deal with B- for V- in Slavic (and neighbors')
>>> names for
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4ogsjh

>> [...]

>>> Vienna:
>>> Bec^ (Bosnian,Croatian, Serbian)
>>> Bech (Romani)
>>> Bécs (Hungarian)

>> These, unlike Cz. <Víden^>, clearly aren't the same name as
>> <Wien>, so this isn't a case of <B-> for <V->. (<Wien>,
>> <Wenia> 881, and <Víden^> appreantly go back to a Celt.
>> <Vedunia>.)

> Vindobona, actually, another *Wenet- name.

One occasionally reads that, but I agree with Ernst Schwarz
that the evidence points to <Vedunia> (his *We:dunia), not
<Vindobona>. It makes no difference to my point, however:
<Bec^> etc. is still clearly a different name.

> Wikipedia gives no source for the alleged 'Celtic' name.

Perhaps you should look a bit further, then.

[...]

>>> Villach (Carinthia, S. Austria):
>>> Be^lák (Czech)
>>> Beljak (Slovene)

It's not terribly important in this context, but Schwarz
says that although <Beljak> is the official Slovene
spelling, the local pronunciation is actually <Bljàk>.

>>> Bilachium (Latin)

>> Here I suspect that it's the other way around, and that
>> German has <V-> for <B->.

> Because?

Because <Bilachium> (or <Bilachinium> -- there seems to be
some question) is apparently Roman, though perhaps
designated a slightly different place.

Brian