Re: Ligurian

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

>
> A Vasco-Caucasian etymology is always fascinating, but to state
> that "X is exclusively Gaulish, and thus certainly not Celtic and much
> less IE" is a fallacy (if You don't realize this, please give positive
> reasons, not simple statements, so You can stop to be afraid). Bri:ua:
> 'bridge' is exclusively Gaulish, <pruuia> /bruuia:/ indeed exclusively
> 'Lepontic', but nevertheless they have PIE etymologies.
>

The Gaulish word for 'bridge' has a *possible* IE etymology because it has cognates outside of Celtic, but I'm afraid this can't be the case of -bona:.

> Bo:na: (never omit long /o:°/, please) < *bouna:
>

What's the evidence for a long vowel here?

> can be analysed as *bhou[H]-nah2,
> collective of *-no- verbal noun of possibility (therefore with
> /o/-grade) as designation of a place with dwelt holes. Compared to
> this etymology, Your one apparently doesn't explain the root vocalism,
> so it has a shortcoming (one more than mine).
>

I disagree.

> In La:rios and llawr, PIE /p/ is - to say the least - completely
> dephonologized; in Pla:rios it appears to be fully preserved.
>

As I said before, Proto-Celtic *Fl- was kept as *bl- in some dialects.

> Goedelic *makkwo-s (remember Ogham spelling with <Q>!) can only be
> from *makw-nó-s (with /a/ of whatever origin), p-Celtic *mapos equally
> necessarily from *makw-o-s, so both forms are simply suffixal variants
> like *bhudh-o- : *bhudh-no-.
>

If only this was an IE word.

> I can't understand why Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan comparisons
> are always presented by You as substrate
> loanwords instead of genetic links.
>

Because West European Vasco-Caucasian languages didn't survive into historical times except in a few cases such as (Paleo-)Basque and Iberian.

> You CAN'T (CAN'T) assert that
> *makkwo-s : *mVXXwA is more evident than *makw-nó-s : *makw-o-s.
>

Yes, I CAN, because there's no evidence for this IE reconstruction.

> "Making impossible to reconstruct a common Proto-Celtic form" simply
> means that there are two Proto-Celtic forms (and this doesn't imply
> that they aren't related); lack of complete identity is different from
> lack of relationships, isn't it?
>

Of course so, but you might agree that lacking a common Proto-Celtic form makes the IE-ness of this word more unlikely.