Re: The reason for Caesar's obtaining the two Gauls as province

2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>> >
>> >> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
>> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2012/2/28, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 'calles' has root 'a', thus it is a 'mot populaire' and
>> >> >> >> > as such not directly descended from PIE by the same route
>> >> >> >> > as 'regular' Latin. Ie. it is a loan.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> No.
>> >> >> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think it does.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Please demonstrate it
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > That I think so?
>> >> > I assume you want me to tell why I prefer that explanation.
>> >> > It's like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. The 'mots populaires' belong to a particlar semantic sphere,
>> >> > namely that pertaining to lower classes of Roman society. You
>> >> > would not see that skewed distribution if they had been
>> >> > descended from PIE the same way as other Latin words.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. Kuhn pointed out that many Latin words with root -a- have
>> >> > correspondences with root -a- in Germanic.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36941?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36946?var=0&l=1
>> >> > I am sure those -a-'s can 'explained' as reflexes of -h2-, but
>> >> > I feel that is contrived. Given the etnic and linguistic
>> >> > environment at the time of the ethnogensis of Romans and
>> >> > Germani I prefer to ascribe them to a language or several
>> >> > related languages present both places at the requisite time.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> 2) There are plenty of sources for Latin /a/
>> >> >> >> e.g. from */e/ after PIE pure velar */k/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I also think pure velars indicate loans.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Same as above
>> >> >
>> >> > Pure velars tend to occur with -a-. Therefore I suspect they
>> >> > have the same origin.
>> >> >
>
>> > Please add your comments *after* the paragraph you comment on, so
>> > that Brian or I won't have to do it for you.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that
>> >> explanation
>> > I don't understand your use of 'demonstrate' in that context.
>
>> You wrote that You think 'mot populaire' means 'loan'.
>
> No, I didn't. This is what happened

————————————————————————————————————
Maybe it happened, but nevertheless You wrote words that imply
that You believe that 'mot populaire' means 'loan'. If You deny this,
we cannot continue neither this discussion nor any other one.
Second point: it's a matter of definition, so it cannot really
'happen'. You can state that 'mot populaire' means 'loan', but this
pertains to present-day French and English.
Third point: neither You nor I nor anyone else were there, in Rome
or Latium, at that time. We can made guesses, but we can't state "it
happened"
————————————————————————————————————

>
>> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
>> >
>> > I think it does.
>
>> Please demonstrate it
>
> The only way I can get that to match what you claim is by assuming that you
> think I don't know that 'mot populaire' translates to English
> "popular/folksy word". Actually I do know that.
>
>> Since 'populaire' means 'of the folk' and English 'loan' is
>> 'emprunt' in French, it follows that 'popular' doesn't coincide with
>> 'loan'. So, if You nevertheless think that 'mot populaire' means
>> 'loan', I would like a logical argumentation that in this case 'mot
>> populaire' implies being a loanword.
>
> I will now explain what I meant above: I think the 'mots populaires', ie
> those covered by that term as used by Ernout-Meillet, are loans in the Latin
> language.
>

————————————————————————————————————
You have now explained what You meant. On that I had no doubt.
What I lack is a proof that such words were taken from a language
other than Latin (because I don't know of any other language where
those words are attested) into Latin (i.e. a further proof that the
direction of the loan was precisely from non-Latin into Latin)
————————————————————————————————————

>> >
>> >> On one side You are so tough that You want all semantic groups
>> >> to show *exactly* the same phonemic distribution, although one
>> >> can always group words with one phoneme and then affirm that such
>> >> phoneme characterizes their prevailing meaning ('populaire' is
>> >> very vague for the complex of Latin words with /a/ of
>> >> non-laryngeal origin: cacumen calamitas calare calidus callis
>> >> calx cancer candere cardo carina carinare caro carpere carpinus
>> >> carrere caterua scabere scalpere scamnum scandere scatere;
>> >> auillus caudex cauere cauilla cauos fauere fauila fauis(s)ae
>> >> Fauonius Faui fauos fraus laus lauere pauere rauos; malleus malus
>> >> manere manus marcere mare margo maritus mateola; canis fax
>> >> quaerere qualum/s quatere squalus suasum uacca uagus ualgus
>> >> ualuae uas uastus; flagrare frangere gradior labra lac magnus
>> >> nassa trabs; fraces lapis latus patere sacena aries gramen
>> >> gramiae trahere faba; castrare farcire farnus fastigium
>> >> ianitrices mala nancire pando panus passer quattuor sarcire
>> >> sarire spargere uannus);
>
> They have have also been characterised as words belonging to the lower class
> *and* religious sphere.
>

————————————————————————————————————
All that is so lovely vague that everybody can build every theory
on such a basis. Till now, the presence of the vowel /a/ cannot be,
per se, a proof that a word isn't of Latin origin. Latin /a/ is
different from, say, /p/ in Q-Celtic languages
————————————————————————————————————

>> >> You are quite severe when You define 'contrived' the
>> >> explanations through *h2 (but that's simply Your "feeling", as
>> >> You write);
>> >
>> > Yes. Thus I don't 'define' it as contrived.
>> >
>> OK You are quite severe when You feel that the explanations
>> through *h2 are 'contrived'
>
> I can't make sense of that sentence.

————————————————————————————————————
Do You feel that explanations through *h2 are 'contrived'?
If no, I beg Your pardon; if yes, You apply a criterion which is
quite tough in comparison with the optimism with which You accept as
true a substrate hypothesis
————————————————————————————————————

>
>> >
>> >> on the other side You are so confident as to postulate whole
>> >> languages (never attested as such) in the ethnogesis of Romans
>> >> and Germani (which languages?)
>
>> > Venetic. Possibly Dacian/Thracian.
>
>
>> Do You have any proof of the presence of Venetic and possibly
>> Dacian or Thracian in the Proto-Germanic Homeland?
>> If yes, which one?
>
> The Germanic homeland in the 2nd - 1st century BCE was what is now Southern
> Poland, Belarus and Western Ukraine
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scirii
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

————————————————————————————————————
Not just there and not principally there and not only so late. You
don't mention Northern Germany and Scandinavia
————————————————————————————————————

> The
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
> with their
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language
> were present there, so were the

————————————————————————————————————
No. I'm sorry. A people called Veneti were there. Venetic language
was spoken, as far as we know, in the Upper Adriatic Basin. It CAN be
that it was spoken in Southern Poland as well, but this is just a
simple hypothesis. We don't have a single piece of evidence in favour
of such hypothesis
————————————————————————————————————

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians
> under
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
> with their
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daco-Thracian#Daco-Thracian
> or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

————————————————————————————————————
As for Thracian, this is simply wrong. Thracian was spoken in
Thrace; there is a couple of names in Regnum Bosporanicum that can be
of Thracian etymology. That's all. There area in between is rather
Dacian.
As for Dacian, it's quite sure that it was spoken West and East of
the Carpathian Range. More to the North, there were Slavs; the
hydronimic evidence (Udolph) is too strong
————————————————————————————————————

>
>
>> >> You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then You
>> >> must be even more skeptical about substrates;
>> >
>> > No.
>
>
>> Aha. Do You think then that IE needs to be more justified than
>> everything else? More than conjectural substrates?
>
> Venetic is not conjectural.

————————————————————————————————————
Chinese as well is not conjectural, but a Chinese substratum for
Germanic is. Likewise, Venetic is not conjectural, but the assumption
that the Veneti (neighbours of the Germani) spoke Venetic IS
conjectural. Please note that I wrote 'conjectural substrates'. As
substrate for Germanic, Venetic is conjectural (of course it's not
conjectural as substrate for, say, North-Adriatic Romance)
————————————————————————————————————

>
>> >
>> >> otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You
>> >> have to accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations
>> >
>> > No.
>
>> Maybe You like strong adfirmations, but Your adfirmations are in
>> some cases too poorly argumented.
>> So, please, why should substrates have privileges that
>> hereditary explanations don't have?
>
> That's not a matter of principle for me; in this case the existence of the
> substrate language I chose is well documented.

————————————————————————————————————
It's documented in another place, not in the neighbourhood of the
Germans, where Baltic and (farther away) Slavonic are (hydronymically)
documented. Northern Adriatc is quite far from Proto-Germanic
Homeland, just as moch as from Homer's Anatolian Enetoi. Nobody would
state without other proofs that Venetic is *documented* in Homer's
Anatolia
————————————————————————————————————

>
>
>> Wouldn't it be better if we used one and the same criterion for all
>> etymologies?
>
> Which one would that be?

————————————————————————————————————
Diachronic phonological precision and areal linguistic philological care
————————————————————————————————————

>
>> >
>> >> even if these make redundant substrate hypotheses
>> >
>> > They don't.
>> >
>>
>> Laryngeal etymologies can be measured. They can be correct at
>> phonological, lexical, and morphological level or not.
>
> They can be true, but in priciple we can't verify that. That's why we
> precede them by an asterisk.

————————————————————————————————————
Every linguistic reconstruction is preceded by an asterisk. Your
reconstructions as well. That doesn't imply that they aren't correct
————————————————————————————————————

>
>
>> If they are correct, they reach the best linguistic standard.
>
> Here you must be using the word 'correct' in some other sense, such as
> 'complying with the current practice of linguists'.

————————————————————————————————————
Yes
————————————————————————————————————

>
>> Documented substrates can offer an alternative. Of course
>> substrate etymologies must be correct as well. If so, they are at
>> the same level of correct hereditary etymologies.
>
> Erh, okay.
>
>> Not documented substrates are hypothetical.
>
> Venetic and Dacian/Thracian are documented.

————————————————————————————————————
Not in the area we are discussing. THERE they are hypothetical.
Phoenician is not hypothetical, generally speaking. It would be
and in fact is hypothetical if treated as substrate for Germanic. Same
for Venetic and Dacian (Thracian is excluded anyway).
————————————————————————————————————

>
>> They can indeed be postulated, especially if there aren't hereditary
>> etymologies. If, on the contrary, there are correct hereditary
>> etymologies, substrate etymologies (from not documented substrates)
>> are praeter necessitatem
>
> Since Venetic and Dacian/Thracian are documented, your above remarks don't
> apply.

————————————————————————————————————
Since Venetic and Dacian are not documented in that area, but in
quite distant regions, my remarks still apply
————————————————————————————————————

>
>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>