From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69437
Date: 2012-04-28
> > 2012/4/24, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> > >
> >
> > >> 2. Bormani, just like Bormio, can better proceed from *bhor-mo- (*bher-
> > >> 'boil')
> > >
> > > Read Kretschmer's paper in KZ 38.
> > >
> >I neglected to mention yesterday that the German name of Bormio is also Worms. This agreement with Worms-am-Rhein (Borbe:tomagus etc.) can hardly be fortuitous and indicates that the 5th-c. Longobardi agreed with the Vangiones in rendering Ligurian *Borm-. The Germanic languages have reflexes of *bHer-mo:n- such as Old English <beorma> 'yeast, foam, barm', but they chose not to use them here.
> >
> > Does it suffice?
> > And now please tell me what's wrong with /bh/ and *bher-w-
>
> There is no basis for naming hot springs *bHor-mo-, and plenty for naming them *gWHor-mo-. Kretschmer's paper explains how Gaulish *borw- (from *bHorw-) was substituted for Ligurian *borm-, since no stem of similar sense occurred in Gaulish.
>
> The variant <Bormitomago> (abl., It. Ant.) very likely shows the original Ligurian stem of the place-name, with Gaul. <magos> 'field' appended, and the same typical Gaul. folk-etymological replacement of *Borm- with *Borw- in the more common <Borb->. The Germanic forms Latinized as <Warmatia>, <Wormacia>, <G(u)ormetia>, etc. indicate that the Germans translated the Lig. stem as 'warm', rather than folk-etymologizing it. In no other principled way can the W- of Worms be explained. Since the Vangiones, a Gmc. tribe, were already there in late antiquity (Ptol.), the W- cannot be a hypercorrection for Lat. B-, as some have suggested.
>
Also, Pieri a century ago (Top. Serchio) observed that Barga, Barghe, Bargi, Sobbargi, Bargenne, Bargecchia, etc., are all situated on or by hills, and deduced the sense 'hill' or 'fort' for *barg-, agreeing with Ligurian phonology as I have presented it, but not with Celtic *brig-.
DGK
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Of course, there's a nice paper by Max Siller on that very topic ("Bormio in un poema tedesco medievale? Sulle leggendarie basi del Rosengarten zu Worms", Bollettino Storico Alta Valtellina 8 / 2005 (Bormio [Sondrio]: Centro Studi Storici Alta Valtellina, 2006), 271-290. Just a minor remark about Longobards: until the 6th-c. CE (568 AD) they were still in Pannonia, they probably reached the Upper Valley of Adda river just in the late 7th / early 8th c. (curiously enough, near the probably eponym place Teglio there's a hamlet Vangione, maybe a mere Celtic-Germanic isogloss)(Rather, I think You may have had no occasion of having a glance to the 1200 pages of a recent book of mine - alas in local academic language - on Bormio / Worms and other ca. 200 Pre-Roman place-names in Valtellina (or Valtline, as they prefer to write) hosted by invitation in the Monograph Series of I.D.E.V.V. (Institute for Dialectology and Ethnogaphy of Valtellina and Valchiavenna). I can send You privately a copy of its 2009 thir edition if You want - although I heavily suspect that You'd perceive it as "baloney" ;-)... In that case You should label as such the etymology of Wien through Slavonic from PIE *Widhh1-u-n-yah2 instead of Windo-bo:na: < PIE *Wi-n-d-o-bhou[h2]-nah2, since I've seriously proposed that Worms is exactly the expected German outcome of *Gwhor-mo-s through Celtic *Gwormo-s while Bormio is form *Bhor[H]-m-yo-, as other place-names nearby show etymologically distinct dublets)It seems to me highly appropriate that such an Authority as Pieri looks attractive, especially to You (and to me too!). What I fail to understand is why should Barga etc. necessarily imply the PIE non-marked zero-grade that emerges as Celtic *brig- (from a levelling of the PIE paradigm *bhe:rg'h-: *bhrg'h-), but not the likewise regular and topographically not less justified collective *bho:rg'h-.Since You have invoked the linguistic giant Kretschmer, one should evaluate his theory for what it is: the reconstruction of a lost Indo-European language on the basis of - for what is relevant here - just a couple of names, viz. Aquae Bormiae* and debelis. His objection to Gaulish *bormo- is too optimistic in its negativity, because it treats a Restsprache as a Groszcorpussprache. The only possible Gaulish attestation of *bormo- could be the disputed form Bormo-: they cannot be used as evidence, but the same must be stated for Bormo- as evidence for an alleged Ligurian outcome of *Gwhor-mo-! This is nevertheless possible, but then You have 200 (not just two!) place-names, between the Alps and Liguria, that clearly testify to the completely regular development in situ from PIE to Continental Celtic in Cisalpine Gaul. Only very rare not-still-completely-p-Celtic spots can be detected here and there (a famous instance is Palaeoligurian Porcobera; another one can be Piario [Bergamo] < Orobic *pla:rios = Celtic *La:rios 'lake Como', Welsh llawr).I leave unreplied Your amusing humour about de Bernardo Stempel's - for me still convincing - etymology of Ingauni; if You have stronger counterarguments, please state them explicitly, this is the right place to do it. Same for the recommended "full day-killer treatment", where I'll escape the trap of joking about those who kill a day, since I'm perfeclty aware that Kilday is in the majority of cases an Anglicization of Gaelic Mac Giolla Deághaidh 'Son of the Servant of Goodwin' (deagh- 'good' + ádh 'luck, fate'), itself a highly intriguing etymological question, isn't it?Yours friendly,*Bh.