From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61018
Date: 2008-10-20
----- Original Message -----
From: "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...>
>
> The problem I have with that is that Old European river names are so
> uniform over such a large area that they must have been spread by a
> water-people, and the IIr.'s are land-people.
A subset of these landlubbers, Iranian-speakers, are known to have
ranged from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean,
DGK
==================
What supports the claim that Iranian-speakers are attested as north as the
Artic Ocean ?
Arnaud
========
Also, I disagree about the alleged uniformity of the river-names
assigned to the Alteuropäisch system. Apart from later names (mostly
Celtic and Baltic) included by mistake, Alteuropäisch has river-names
of both Veneto-Illyrian and Indo-Iranian types. In the Northwest of
Europe, I see a core of Veneto-Illyrian with an intermittent overlay
of Indo-Iranian. In the Southwest, Indo-Iranian forms the oldest
Indo-European stratum, overlain in turn by Lusitanian (which I
consider to be a Veneto-Illyrian language) and Celtiberian.
========
How do you describe Veneto-Illyrian ?
How to recognize a Veneto-Illyrian word ?
Arnaud
=======
In developing his theory of Alteuropäisch, Hans Krahe focused too
much attention on suffixes, too little attention on the relation
between root-grade and suffix, and far too little attention on the
semantics of the complete names. His successors have offered some
partial remediation, but to my knowledge no revision of the theory
has been published which addresses all the problems. What I propose
is, of course, a radical revision. Resulting from the conflation of
distinct strata, the Alteuropäisch system as such is a mirage, not
the product of a uniform Proto-Western IE as Krahe thought, much less
of PIE itself as W.P. Schmid insisted.
=======
Why not ?
I would rather agree with the revision,
but what supports it ?
Arnaud
=====