Re: Hercynian (again)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> > loans aren't the only trace of substrates, as there's also
> > toponymy. And quite often toponymy roots become loans (e.g. Latin aqua
> > 'water'). In a multi-layer model I've got no problem to consider items
> > like this as IE, although certainly not "PIE" in the traditional sense.
>
> OK, but You'll agree that PIE etymologies (in the sense of Celtic
> evolution in situ of PIE names) are nevertheless ALWAYS possible in
> full agreement with every phonological, lexical, and morphological
> criterion
>

I don't think these roots could be possibly be "Celtic". If they were so, we wouldn't have this argument.

> *naua < Celtic *nāuā (Hubschmid!) < PIE *nah2/4us
>

Semantics doesn't fit, as 'boat' is unrelated to 'plain'.

> *gaua < Celtic *gāuā < PIE *g'hōu-ah2/4 (my ertymology)
>

Is this *g´he:u- 'to pour'? Unfortunately, we've also got the toponym cava (Madrid) 'moat'.

> are powerful explanations, I think.
>

I'm afraid not.

> Kartvelian OK, but PIE through Celtic still better!
>

I think Kartvelian is the descendant of one of the first languages brought to Europe by modern man in the Upper Palaeolithic, so IMHO these roots must be extremely old.