Re: Ligurian

2012/4/28, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- 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:.

—————————————————————————————————

You are often afraid, but IE cognates from root *bheuh2- are even
more numerous (e.g. Lat. fouea)

—————————————————————————————————

>
>> Bo:na: (never omit long /o:°/, please) < *bouna:
>>
> What's the evidence for a long vowel here?

—————————————————————————————————

Latin language

—————————————————————————————————

>
>> 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.

—————————————————————————————————

Of course; You always disagree. You hate reconstructed PIE, don't
believe in its reality and desire its destruction. This is evident;
You have an alternative model. It would be definitely more interesting
to know why precisely You disagree in finding that failing in
explaining root vocalism isn't a shortcoming as compred with an
etymology with does explain it in full consistency with a 200-years
established paradigm

—————————————————————————————————

>
>> 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.

—————————————————————————————————

Marvellous, but what does it matter here?

—————————————————————————————————

>
>> 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.

—————————————————————————————————

OK it's impossible to discuss with You; evidently You have direct
access to Prehistory. I'm sorry, my Lord ;-)
Do You understand that You kill any conversation? You don't admit
anything at variance with Your personal hypotheses. You seem to fail
to realize (You seem, because I can't believe that You really fail)
that there are facts, hypotheses, contrastive hypotheses, conjectures,
and so on. We all agree on facts. Wa all have hypotheses; sometimes
they contrast: don't You think that even Your hypotheses can have
alternative ones?
Please, do You really think that we all are incapable to see the
unique Truth that only You have the privilege to understand? If You
have such a conviction, please tell us, so we'll avoid to waste our
and Your time in discussion - since we are all stupid...

—————————————————————————————————

>
>> 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.

—————————————————————————————————

Historical phonology IS its evidence. A PIE word doesn't need to
survive in two or more languages to be reconstructed (only to be
demonstrated, which is another affair); just one language is enough to
reconstruct its proto-form

—————————————————————————————————

>
>> "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.

—————————————————————————————————

Just less sure, which is different.
In any case not more unlikely than the Vasco-Caucasianness of Your
etymology (I write again, Your reconstruction is fantastic and
possible, but NOT more likely than mine)

>
>