Veneto-Luso-Messapic-Illyrian(was V-, B-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@... com>
> ============ ======
> What supports the claim that Iranian-speakers are attested as
north as the
> Artic Ocean ?
> Arnaud
> ========

Whoops. I have no evidence indicating they actually bathed in the
Arctic Ocean. However, Iranian loanwords in Finno-Ugric suggest
that they got reasonably close. The point is that "landlubbers" can
expand over a vast area under the right conditions.
=========

In fact, I tend to think that Mordvins are very probably Uralicized Indic
speakers.
But this idea needs to be adequately documented.
It's very superficial to think only Iranic languages were in contact with
Finno-Volgaic.
A.
=======
> ========
> How do you describe Veneto-Illyrian ?
> How to recognize a Veneto-Illyrian word ?
> Arnaud
> =======

Thanks very much for asking this question.
DGK
=======
There's nothing I hate more than a non defined entity.
A.
========

Like Pokorny and
Hubschmid, I had blithely assumed that the attested Venetic language
of the Po Valley belonged with Illyrian in a "Veneto-Illyrian"
branch of Indo-European. Careful examination of the Venetic corpus
has now shown me that Venetic cannot be shoehorned into the same IE
branch as Illyrian. However, the affinities between Lusitanian and
Messapic are too striking to ignore, and the connections between
Messapic itself and the poorly known languages of Illyria proper are
clear. Therefore I must postulate an Illyro-Lusitanian branch of IE
which excludes Venetic, as explained below.
DGK
==========
ok I understand.
the interesting thing is the Illyro-Lusitanian branch of IE that you
describe does not seem to be the same thing as a substrate that I believe
has existed in Latin.
This would mean that there may be three layers of IE in Italy.
1. My substrate
2. Illyro-Lusitanian
3. Italic
A.
=========

The principal Illyro-Lusitanian diagnostics are gemination of
postvocalic consonants followed by semivowels, accent generally
recessive but falling on the last syllable of the first part of a
compound noun, and monophthongization of long diphthongs. Within
this branch of Indo-European, Lusitanian retains inherited /o/ and
final /m/, while the Illyrian group changes them to /a/ and /n/.
The latter group includes Q-languages and P-languages based on the
treatment of labiovelars. Messapic and Japygian are Q-Illyrian
languages, while Macedonian in my view is a P-Illyrian language.
All these languages have merged the inherited voiced aspirates with
the simple voiced stops, and each shows some idiosyncratic secondary
developments with its consonants.

Attic Greek <híppos> 'horse' can be regarded as an inherited reflex
of PIE *H1ek^wo- only through strained ad-hoc assumptions.
=======
I'm been saying for two years that this *H1ek^wo- does not exist.
It does not work phonetically.
I'm glad somebody else can see that obviousness.
A.
=======

I see no reason to suppose that Attic-Epic <híppos>
continues the Mycenaean form, with */kk{w}/ developing into /pp/ in
Proto-Attic. More likely the Attic form is borrowed directly from
Macedonian or other P-Illyrian. The inherited Greek root likely
appears in <Epeiós> (builder of the Trojan Horse, Il. 23:665, Od.
8:493, etc.) from an extinct *epos 'horse'.
DGK
=======
Are you aware that the logical next step of your description is that Greek
split from other languages _before_ the horse was domesticated.
And that PIE stage of language did not know of horses,
something I have come to think.
A.
======

Latin <ju:niperus> , <-
i:> (f.) has evidently been altered to conform to other tree-names
from *ju:nipera 'juniper-berry- producing' , from *ju:num 'juniper-
berry', from Old Lat. *juxnom < *yukw-snom.
DGK
=========
do you mean that yuni-_per_ is from *bher ?
A.
========

Despite its retention of inherited /o/ and final /m/, Lusitanian
shows striking affinities to Messapic. In the inscription of Cabeço
das Fráguas, <Iccona> appears to be the name of the goddess
equivalent to the Gaulish Epona, in the dative case. Thus
Lusitanian has *ikko- from PIE *H1ek^wo- 'horse', just as Messapic
and other Q-Illyrian have *(h)ikko-. If we assume that PIE *H1e-
was reflected in Illyro-Lusitanian as *hi-, we can explain not
only 'horse' but several other words in Messapic and Lusitanian.
Mess. <hipades> is equivalent in sense to Grk. <epéthe:ke> 'placed'
(something) 'upon' (someone), in practice 'dedicated'
(something) 'to' (a deity). Mess. <hipa-> corresponds to Grk. <epi-
> if both reflect *H1ep- with different grades and extensions, <hipa-
> reflecting *H1epo- and <epi-> *H1pi-.
========
This language keeps H1 as h
this is fascinating.
It confirms what I've been saying : H1 is not a glottal stop but a
pharyngeal fricative !
A.
========

Messapic also
has /a:/-stem datives in <-a> (presumably /-a:/ from */-a:i/, cf.
Whatmough, op. cit. p. 600), e.g. <Aprodita> in several dedicatory
inscriptions.
DGK
========
Are we sure we can rule out a Greek LW thru Etruscan ?
A.
===========

Work in progress ...
DGK

============

Thank you very much,
All This is fascinating.

Arnaud

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links