Re: Ligurian

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

>
> @ Octavià: I beg Your pardon if my sentences are sometimes quite
> assertive; always frankly but friendly!
> 

You're welcome.

> > 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)
>

But this won't explain Gaulish -bona:, which has likely non-IE cognates. I quoted the Basque ones, but I could also add the -ipo(n) element in SW Iberia.

> Of course; You always disagree. You hate reconstructed PIE, don't
> believe in its reality and desire its destruction.
>

It isn't a matter of personal taste, but of explaining facts, something which the traditional model only does in part.

> 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?
>

Because many specialists tend to forgot the Proto-Celtic stage, going back to "PIE" *p.

> 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?
>

As far as I can tell, your hypothesis implictly assumes: a) there was no language replacement and b) every word found in an IE language can be derived from an entity called "PIE". But I disagree on both accounts because there's evidence on the contrary.

> 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 don't think you're actually stupid, but if you fell so, it's because your *chose* it.

> 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
>

This is true only if is actually IE, something unlikely in this particular case.

> "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)
>

The Celtic word has no likely IE cognates but VC ones, so it's more likely a VC substrate loanword of which they're more examples.