Re: PIE vestuary

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> Dialectal (what I call "Sabino-Latin"); cf. <cuppa> beside <cu:pa>;
> <Juppiter> (orig. voc.) beside Romano-Latin <Die:spiter>, etc.
>
> > That's OK, but we've still got no *pa:nus here.
>
> Not attested, since ragmen were plebeians, and would have used Sabino-Latin <pannus>, which would have ousted Romano-Latin *pa:nus, since patricians had better things to do than handling rags.
>

This story is interesting, but I don't buy it.

> > 3) Last, but not least, the link between the Greek and Germanic words is
> > also dubious.
>
> The Gmc. words have zero-grade, which is hardly a problem.
>

I don't think this is could be a PIE word at all.

> Ligurian preserves /o/- in /o/-grade, as in *Borm- 'warm spring'. It also keeps -nd-, as in <Vindupale> (Sent. Minuc.).
>

This Ligurian would be either a Celtic or para-Celtic language, very different from Italoid aka Illyro-Lusitanian, which certainy has no /o/.

> Why create confusion by using an established term in an idiosyncratic way?
>
> > More than "using" it, I'm *explaining* it. That is, I see as a substrate
> > or adstrate what other people think it's a genetic relationship.
>
> But your parastrate is still not identical to other people's Italo-Celtic. You could simply call it Italic parastrate.
>

Then "Italo-Celtic" is only an illusion caused by an Italic substrate/adstrate in Celtic.