From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 68717
Date: 2012-03-02
>—————————————————————————————————————
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>> >>
>> >> IMHO all ancient Veneti and Venetes were IE tribes with the
>> >> same name and no more. Of course they had some lexicon in common,
>> >> but no special relationships.
>> >
>> > Why the common name then?
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> Because they preserved their name since PIE epoch, the age of
>> migrations (Upper Palaeolithic; later on Neolithic as well and
>> partially also Chalcolithic)
>
> So then they were the same people? Why did they change their language then?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root#Restrictions_on_the_plosives—————————————————————————————————————
> 'A root cannot contain two plain voiced plosives (**ged-),...'
> We don't find the roots **ged- and **deg-.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> PIE */b/ has realtively many attestations (more than */gwh/) not
>> only in Germanic, but also in Armenian, Latin and Old Indic. Mots
>> attestations are Germanic because Germanic words are more than those
>> of any other class, so every PIE phoneme is mostly represented by
>> Germanic!
>
> That's right. Most of those PIE *b-'s are concluded from Germanic *p- only.
> The whole idea of positing a reconstructed root is to base it on more than
> one occurrence in the daughter languages. All those solo occurrences of p-
> in Germanic raises the suspicion that those words don't belong there.
>> It's too easy, I can't accept such a reasoning unless it's—————————————————————————————————————
>> presented for what it is: a simple hypothesis (a reductionist one)
>
> They are all hypotheses. What is your point?
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>> >> If yes, however, they wouldn't be a residue of an
>> >> earlier wider substrate, because the are in between exhibit
>> >> place-names which have experimented all sound laws from PIE to
>> >> Celtic (and no other sound laws), so there's direct continuity in
>> >> Central (and Western) Europe form PIE to Celtic (and all possible
>> >> words on non-IE origins have *better* IE-Celtic etymologies).
>> >
>> > That is at odds with what I know. Please cite an example of a
>> > place name with competing NWB and Celtic etymologies in NWEurope.
>
>> You give orders, but I don't understand their sense. I've written:
>> "all possible words on non-IE origins have *better* IE-Celtic
>> etymologies". NWB is of IE origin. So what has NWB to do here?
>
> Actually Kuhn posited two NWB languages: an original non-IE one, which he
> called the ar-/ur-language, and a later, shortlived IE language.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>
>> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>>
>> > Many (coastal) Slovenian dialects have
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacism ,
>> > or rather the reverse, *w- -> *b-
>> > according to
>> > Josef Savli, Matej Bor
>> > "Unsere Vorfahren die Venter"
>> > which nice linguists don't read, but which provides much data.
>> > cf.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59384?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59332
>> > so I suspected identifying toponym (reverse) betacism would
>> > establish the presence of Veneti.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60815?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62508?var=0&l=1
>> >
>> > FWIW
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59928?var=0&l=1
>> >
>> >
>
>
>> You grouped together attestations with
>> Middle Greek orthography (<b> for /v/),
> Which ones?
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> Middle High German phonology (with <w> and <b> for a voiced bilabial
>> fricative)
> Which ones?
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> and Romance outputs according to the sound law /v/ > /b/ when
>> followed by vowel + continuous + stop (e.g. uesper > bespro, uulpes >
>> bolpe)
> Which ones?
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> or simply /b/ > /v/ word-initially (Southern Italo-Romance).
> Wich ones?
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> Please note that we have NO trace of such treatments in REAL
>> Venetic inscriptions!
>
> Venetic uses it own alphabet, so we don't know how they pronounced the
> letter descended from /v/ in other alphabets. The fact that the use the
> letter descended from /z/ for PIE d (written zonasto, zoto for presumed
> donasto, doto "gave") raises suspicion that PIE d- > Venetic d-/ð-, thus we
> could have PIE w > Venetic b/β as in Spanish, Neapolitan and Maceratese
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacism