From: dgkilday57
Message: 59529
Date: 2008-07-11
>being
> [...]
>
> I've been reading lately a book a the kind linguists shouldn't.
> Joz^ef S^avli Matej Bor, 'Unsere Vorfahren, Die Veneter'.
> It belongs to the recent tradition that the Slovenians were really
> Veneti, and that the Slavs thus were there all along. They do have
> some intriguing facts. How they account for the Slavic languages
> so similar and for the Eastern Slavic territory being withoutmit /b/
> onomastic material pointing to *wenet- I don't know.
> 'Alles spricht dafür, daß die Veneter in der Aussprache mancher
> Buchstaben ziemlich unsicher waren, wie es übrigens den Slowenen vom
> Küstenland (Primorska) noch heute ergeht. Sie haben leicht /v/
> verwechselt (Betatismus), z. B. 'vog' anstatt 'bog'.'in
> "Everything seems to indicate that the Veneti were rather uncertain
> their pronunciation of many letters, as still today it happens tothe
> Slovenians of the coast land (Primorska). The easily confuse /v/with
> /b/, eg. 'vog' instead of 'bog'."Primorska
>
> Now that's not linguist talk, but it seems fairly clear that
> Slovenian has /b/ > /v/. So I wondered that if one reinterpretedI am pessimistic that betatismus by itself could be used this way,
> S^avli and Bor to be about a Venetic substrate in Slovenian instead
> that this 'betatismus' could be used as an indicator of Venetic
> presence (outside Spain, obviously), eg. the Bec^ names for Vienna,
> and the Be^lák, Beljak, Bljàk names for Villach?