--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 9:10:08 PM on Tuesday, February 2, 2010, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@>
> > wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
> >> <liberty@> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
> >>> <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
>
> >>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
> >>>> <liberty@> wrote:
> [...]
> >>> Have you applied the Sean Whalen etymological method to
> >>> it?
>
> >> For some reason I keep wanting to read that as
> >> 'cryptological method'.
>
> > Goodness, I use established and proven methods of
> > linguistic reconstruction (including borrowing,
> > metathesis, and dissimilation), mostly regular rules (and
> > those that aren't mostly optional, which is a
> > well-established possibility in historical linguistics)
> > and yet am subject to extreme criticism for it.
>
> Because much of what you do is an elaborate (albeit
> unintentional) parody of the real thing, combinatorial games
> played almost in a vacuum.
I disagree; rather than in a vacuum, I consider each problem with regard to all known possible sound changes and all known words that might be related or cause analogical influence.
For example, a "real" linguist has suggested that the Celtiberian god Tongo- was a god of oaths (by connection to the root *tong-), which makes use of a linguistic method, but ACTUALLY is done in a vacuum, and more like a parody of the real thing, which should start with comparison to words in other languages (in this case, specifically names of gods in Celtic languages).
First, there is no evidence Tongo- was a god of oaths; the comparison was just made to a root that looked like part of the name (but not other varieties like Tokoitos, (dat) Togoti \ Togae \ Tongo \ Tongoe), then the meaning of that root was used to supply a possible function.
Second, the other varieties like Tokoitos, Togoti \ Togae \ Tongo \ Tongoe often lack the nasal or show some other feature impossible to reconcile from *tong-.
Third, other names of gods in other Celtic languages, already known to be related by "real" linguists, are similar to those above, show similar variation, show very wide variation, and are unrelated to *tong-.
Therefore, using my supposedly worthless methods, I suggest that Cib Tokoitos is cognate to words for 'thunder god': Taranucno- \ Taranuo- \ Taraino-, Taranis, OIr Tuiren \ Tuirill, etc.
1. N vs. 0
Gaul
Taranucno- \ Taranuo-
Cib
Tongo \ Tongoe
2. k vs. t vs. 0
Gaul
Taranucno- \ [] \ Taranuo-
Cib
[] \ Togoti \ Tongoe
3. y vs. []
Gaul
Taraino- \ Taranuo-
Cib
Tokoitos \ Togoti
4. o vs. a
Celt
Taranis \ Tuiren
Cib
Tongo
(the above is meant to show that -o- existed in the name for 'thunder god', just as in 'thunder, lightning' like toran Ir; taran W; below)
5. similar variation in 'thunder, lightning'
Words like tonitrus L; toran Ir; taran W; are not just from the same root, they are direct cognates (and show much less variation than either Taranucno- \ Taranuo- \ Taraino- or Tokoitos, Togoti \ Togae \ Tongo \ Tongoe). I will assume the fewest variations from standard IE reconstructions below for clarity and brevity, though it is not exactly what I believe.
5a. t vs. 0
tonitrus \ toran
* (PIE > _)
ton-x-tro+
ton-x-ro+ (t-t>0 dissimilation)
5b. n-r vs. r-n
tonitrus \ toran
*
ton-x-ro+
tor-x-no+ (metathesis)
5c. o vs. a
toran \ taran
*
tor-x-no+
tor-n-xo+ (metathesis)
tor-an-xo+
tar-an-xo+ (irregular V-assimilation)
With the above in mind, an explanation for all forms can be given.
In PIE:
* ton-x-tro+ 'thunder, lightning'
>>
* ton-x-tr-no+s 'god of thunder, lightning'
In Celtic:
Just as * ton-x-tro+ > * tor-an-xo+ \ tar-an-xo+ so too * ton-x-tr-no+s > * tor-an-x-no+s \ tar-an-x-no+s, but also forms without t-t>0 dissimilation survive (if varieties existed for 'thunder, lightning' at the time, there is no evidence yet) as * tort-an-x-no+s \ tart-an-x-no+s.
*
tar-an-x-nos
tar-an-kH-nos
tar-ankH-nos
tar-aNkH-nos
tar-aNkH-Nos
tar-aNukH-Nos
tar-aN-ukH-Nos
tar-aÑ-uqH-Nos
tar-aÑ-uqH-Ños
taR-aÑ-uqH-Ños
taR-aÑ-uqH-Ños taR-aÑ-uX-Ños
taR-aÑ-uqH-Ños taX-aÑ-uX-Ños
taR-aÑ-uqH-Xos taX-aÑ-uX-Ños etc
taR-aÑ-uqH-os taX-aÑ-uX-Ños etc (uvular glide)
taR-aÑ-uqH-yos taX-aÑ-uX-Ños etc
taR-aÑ-uqH-Ños
Taranucno-
taR-aÑ-uqH-Ños
taR-aÑ-uX-Ños
taR-aÑ-uX-os (Ñ-Ñ>0 dissimilation)
Taranuo-
taR-aÑ-uX-os
taR-aÑ-u-os
taR-aÑ-uy-os
taR-aÑ-iy-os
Taranis
taR-aÑ-iy-os
taR-aÑ-y-os
taR-ay-Ñ-os
taR-ay-Ños
Taraino-
toR-ay-Ños
toR-ey-Ños
Tuiren
toR-ey-Ños
toR-ey-Ros
toR-ey-Los
Tuirill
*
tort-an-x-no+s
>>
toRt-aÑ-uqH-Xos toXt-aÑ-uX-Ños etc
toXt-aÑ-uX-Ños
toXt-a-uX-Ños (Ñ>0-Ñ dissimilation)
toXt-auX-Ños
toXt-au-Ños
toXt-auy-Ños
toXt-auy-Ños toXt-ouy-Ños
toXt-aay-Ños toXt-ooy-Ños
toXt-ooy-Ños
toÑ-Xooy-tos
toX-Xooy-tos
Tokoitos
toÑ-Xooy-tos
toÑ-Xooy-os (t-t>0 dissimilation)
toÑ-qHooy-os
Tongoe
toÑ-XooX-tos
toÑ-XooX-os (t-t>0 dissimilation)
toÑ-qHooX-os
Tongoe
toÑ-Xaay-tos
toÑ-Xaay-os (t-t>0 dissimilation)
toX-Xaay-os
Togae
or similar, etc.
I've mentioned some of the changes above before, but whatever they were it's almost beside the point. Celtic words (most often names of gods and places) showed great variety in the distant past. Just Belatucadros \ Balatucadrus \ Blatucadrus \ Balatocadrus \ Belatucairus \ Balatucairus \ Blatucairus \ Belleticaurus \ Baliticaurus \ Balaticaurus \ Belatugagus in Britain shows obvious metathesis (u-i > i-u) as well as changes that should have been seen by linguists long ago (just as opt. y > dY / dYzY (not D) so opt. dY > y in Balatucadrus \ Balatucairus (the existence of tY ( > dY / V_r, as is known) in 'battle' should be seen by tY > tYsY in catu- \ cassi-, etc.).
There is no reason to suppose the type and variety of changes was confined to proper names; they are merely the largest source of ancient evidence. There is no reason to suppose the type and variety of changes was confined to Celtic. In fact, whenever sufficient evidence is available, the amount of variation greatly increases the further in the past I look.
Whenever someone attempts to derive W Mathonwy from *matto- without considering < Matutino, I'd say that is done in a vacuum. Whenever someone says I can not derive W Mathonwy < Matutino because it would require metathesis, I'd say that is done in a vacuum (without considering the many Celtic god-names that obviously show metathesis), and probably saying that metathesis is somehow less pure than regular sound changes, for some unknown reason.
I even think it's odd that W Matholwch ( < OIr) isn't also commonly derived < Matutino because it would require metathesis, t-t>l dissimilation, and n > Ñ > qH (as in Taranucno- \ Taranuo-). But this is more easily understandable.
> But I concluded quite a while
> ago that it's a waste of time to go into detail: you have
> too much invested to give real consideration to the
> possibility that much of it is seriously flawed, and in any
> case you seem to be missing something fundamental, something
> akin to a sense of proportion and plausibility.
I disagree.