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

At 11:13:00 AM on Saturday, June 21, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>> 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,

> Actually, one reads it all the time.

>> but I agree with Ernst Schwarz that the evidence points
>> to <Vedunia> (his *We:dunia), not <Vindobona>.

> I'm not surprised.
> So on the list, it should be Celtic *Vedunia, then?

Don't know for sure; quite possibly.

> What is the evidence Ernst Schwarz refers to?

It's something of an aside in a larger discussion, so he
doesn't say much; he does, however, specifically point to
the Cz. form. If I remember correctly there's also a
reference to something by R. Much.

>> It makes no difference to my point, however:
>> <Bec^> etc. is still clearly a different name.

> Of course it does.
> If it's Vindo-bona, it might be related to, say *Went-sk-
> > *Bec^-. If it's Ve:dunia, it most likely isn't.

It most likely isn't, full stop.

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

>> Perhaps you should look a bit further, then.

> Why are you on Cybalist at all?
> Other people would provide an answer if they knew one.

My point is that it's inappropriate to imply that the Celtic
derivation is complete nonsense or a figment of someone's
imagination just because Wikipedia, of all things, doesn't
give a source for it. Frankly, I doubt that the lack would
have bothered you very much had this derivation suited you
better than the <Vindobona> one.

> If you get nothing but snotty answers, you get tired of
> asking.

Of all the Cybalist regulars, you are in the worst position
to complain about snotty responses.

[...]

>>>>> 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.

> I was speculating that the b-/v- alternation had to do
> with a substrate in the area. Do you have an idea what
> this German v- for b- thing is, or is it just a one-off?

Haven't looked into it seriously enough to have an opinion.
<Worms> ~ <Borbetomagos> is similar, but there are certainly
instances of the expected /b-/ > /p-/. If I had to guess,
it's a not unreasonable irregular outcome.

Brian