Re: Hercynian (again)

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

> 2012/2/28, Trond Engen<trond@...>:
>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>>> But there's no need of steppes. The fact that steppes cultures were
>>> probably of Proto-Indo-European language cannot in any way dismiss
>>> the linguistic fact that the Alpine area has been Indo-European
>>> from the very beginning (at least from the date of neognos-rule,
>>> which is Common Indo-European)
>>
>> Whatever you might mean by that, it seems like a detour, since I
>> don't think there's any reasonable mechanism to get the word into
>> Baltic.
>
> This is the mechanism:
> 1) the morpho-lexical system of Common Indo-European generated the
> word since the very beginning of the structure of Proto-Indo-European
> 2) the geographical diffusion fo the speakers of such language
> brought the word into every territory where Common Indo-European has
> been spoken
> 3) according to different specific onomasiological or onomastic
> needs, the word has been applied to individuals or classes fo
> referents.
>
> I meant that point 2 has taken place in Alpine area as well

OK, in other words a generic meaning "mountain (range)" or some such
taking specific referents independently. This means it would have been
attributed to the Alps at a time when Indo-European speakers were
geographically dispersed far beyond effective contact, although (as I
understand your account) variant languages had not yet developed. The
word would have been inherited in Baltic (and probably North Germanic)
independently of whatever those Pre-Bavarians may have used it for, and
a meaning "Alps" could not be reconstructed for PIE.

And is there actual evidence that it ever denoted the Alps?

--
Trond Engen