2012/4/28, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>> > 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.
———————————————————————————————————
1) You have a complex and attractive model. This model is possible.
This doesn't imply that other models aren't possible. In YOUR model
Gaulish "-bona:" (which You persist in writing with an erroneous short
/o/) can plausibly have a non-IE cognate in -ipo(n).
2) You know that I've proposed a PIE etymology for -ipo(n) (: Greek
aip'y) < PIE *h2ip-on-. This is regular non only in my own model, but
also, more generally, in IE studies. You can't deny this fact.
3) The contrast is therefore between models, not between
etymologies. Every etymology is regular in its own model. On one side
Your model, on the other one not my model, but IE studies. Many
Indo-Europeanists don't accept Your model; I find it possible. You
don't accept my model (I think You don't event admit that it may be
possible), but do You accept IE diachronic phonology? If yes, please
accept my etymology as possible (or demonstrate that it isn't regular
according to IE diachronic phonology); if no, we are really wasting
our time: Your messages will automatically loose their locutive force
and will level to a generalized illocutive force "I don't agree, I'm
afraid You are completely wrong, IMHO You are all tied to a
pre-scientific faith" and so on.
In any case, please, avoid to maintain that "this won't explain
Gaulish -bona:", because it's twice false (it does explain it, unless
IE phonology is false; Gaulish has -bo:na:, not - here - -bona:)
———————————————————————————————————
>
>> 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.
———————————————————————————————————
Do You realize that a model, per se, implies the existence of other
competing models? Otherwise it wouldn't be a model, it would be a
scientific fact.
Your model explains all facts. My model too (it isn't "the
traditional model"). Your model is at variance with part of IE
studies; my model isn't (IE studies don't necessarily imply the
"traditional model"). This isn't the end of the story, but please
agree at least with these fundamental requirements!
———————————————————————————————————
>> 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.
———————————————————————————————————
OK, La:rios and llawr go back to Proto-Celtic *Fla:rios < PIE
*Plh1/2riyos; Piario goes boack to Orobic *Pla:rios < PIE
*Plh1/2riyos.
- Are You satisfied?
- Wasn't all this already implicit?
- And still, what does the hypothetic Gallaecian outcome of
Proto-Celtic /F/ matter for La:rios (which has completely lost
Proto-Celtic */F/, without passing through a phase */b/) of for Piario
(which still nowadays retains PIE /p/, without any /F/-phase)?
———————————————————————————————————
> 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.
———————————————————————————————————
If You mean that there are alternative models, I completely agree.
What I assume is that IE diachronic phonology is correct. This is
my only assumption. That every word found in an IE language can be
regularly derived from an entity called "PIE" according to IE
diachronic phonology isn't an assumption; it can be a fact only if I
(or someone else) produce(s) positive regular etymologies in that
frame: this cannot be a matter of opinion, if it happens it's a fact,
otherwise it's a goal.
Whether such an entity really existed in Prehistory or not, is a
matter of scientific faith - i.e., based on positive data, among them
the intrinsically scarce probability that the regularity of sound
correspondences between IE languages are due to chance. (You agree
with this.)
Whether such PIE was a relatively continuous linguistic area or
not, depends on the model one chooses. I choose a model which admits
it; You don't. Personal taste, nothing more. Scientific duty is to
correctly implement one's model.
Since I believe to have always found a regular derivation from PIE
(this isn't an implicit assumption, is a falsifiable opinion), I go on
in thinking that no language replacement has taken place before Early
History; this isn't as well an implicit assumption, it's a logical
consequence (of a falsifiable opinion).
The evidence can be otherwise explained; this is by no means a
proof against the correctness of my model, it's just a proof against
the conclusion that my model is the only one and therefore the right
one. Similarly, the fact (because it's a fact) that my model does
explain the evidence - no less than Your one - cannot be a proof
against the correctness of Your model, it's just a proof against Your
apparent opinion that Your model is the only coherent one and
therefore the only right one.
That said, please continue to implement Your model; simply abstain
from continuously writing proclaims against every other model,
especially if these models aren't less coherent than Your one!
———————————————————————————————————
>> 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.
———————————————————————————————————
If one persists in his own opinions against the evidence, he is
stupid; this isn't my choice, it's logic.
If you state that my opinions are against the evidence and I
persist in keeping them, either I'n really stupid or You are declaring
that I'm stupid; in the first case it's my choice to be stupid (and
not only to feel that You think so), in the second case it's You
choice to state - albeit implicitly - that I'm stupid. This isn't my
feeling, it's Pragmatics.
Anyway, I don't care to feel that someone thinks I'm stupid
because I wouldn't care if someone really thinks I'm stupid. Maybe I'm
really stupid. The point is if You realize that You are indeed stating
- no matter if You really think so or not - that the people with which
You are discussing are stupid. If, then, You don't think they are
stupid, You are performing a pragmatic fallac. Hoc uolebam nescius ne
esses
———————————————————————————————————
>
>> 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.
———————————————————————————————————
"likely" or "unlikely" is like "ugly" or "beautiful": in this
case, completely a matter personal taste, unless You have positive
statistical measurements
———————————————————————————————————
>
>> "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.
———————————————————————————————————
PIE *mh2k'- 'raise, grove' is a sufficient cognate. This doesn't
exclude a further link with Vasconic and North Caucasian. If we admit
a link between these Celtic words and the Caucasian ones, this link
can be either substrate or common genetic descendance. You opt for
substrate, I rather for a possible genetic link. This doesn't alter
the formal side of the etymology, but again raises the question of
models. It would be better to keep separate these two questions.
Anyway, how would You explain *makwo-s (with just one /kw/)?