--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:
>
> --- On Sat, 11/8/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> > Subject: [tied] Re: V-, B-
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 5:48 AM
> > > (Indeed, Venetic treatment of voiced aspirates is so
> > similar
> > > to that of Latin, which is peculiar within Italic,
> > that I am tempted
> > > to posit a Venetic substrate for Latin. This is
> > supported by the
> > > names <Praeneste> and <Venetulani> (Plin.)
> > as well as the use
> > > of 'free ones' in the sense 'children'
> > (Lat. <li:beri:>, Ven. dat.
> > > pl. <louderobos>). But I digress.)
> >
> > Damn, you beat me to it. Henceforth I will refer to Latin
> > 'mots
> > populaires' with root /a/ as belonging to 'the
> > (Latin) a-language'
> > (which I assume, ie. accept as a working hypothesis, is
> > Venetic).
> >
> >
> > Torsten
But Venetic retains all five short vowels, as is clear from the
inscc. Therefore a Venetic substrate in Latin would only "pass the
buck" regarding those "mots populaires".
> In some previous posts (years ago), some have posited that
Lusitanian was related to Q-Italic, with Ligurian and Sikeli lumped.
If you're seeing such close relationship between Latin and Venetic,
et al. Then perhaps Italic unity is a mirage rooted in adstrates.
This might also explain the locations of Q-Italic at the margins of
Italy: Sicily, Ligurian, the mouth of the Tiber, the N. end of the
Adriatic.
>
I don't see a close GENETIC relationship between Latin and Venetic.
The verbal system of Venetic is radically different from that of
Latin and the other Italic languages. The striking thing is the
Latin treatment of voiced aspirates (against the other Itc. lgs.
including Q-Itc. Faliscan), and this could be explained by Venetic-
speakers (in a restricted area) influencing the later Italic spoken
there, the Proto-Latin dialect. The unity between Q-Italic and P-
Italic is no mirage (although Krahe suspected it, because he
attached undue importance to certain phonological stuff).
Ligurian does not assimilate *p...kw... to *kw...kw... so it is
neither Italic nor Celtic. Sicel retains /p/ so it is not Celtic.
I don't know whether it belongs with Itc., Lig., or neither.
Lusit. has the geminate in <Iccona> which places it with Ill. and
Mess., but I've already covered that.
DGK