--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> > 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-.
>
No, I don't know.
> 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:)
>
Once again: what's the evidence for a long vowel here?
> 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!
>
Pretending to explain all the facts doesn't imply it actually does so. This is why competing theories do exist.
> 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?
>
No, because IMHO the Orobic form also descends from Proto-Celtic,
> - 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)?
>
See above.
> 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.)
>
Not exactly. What you've got is a collection of words found in historical IE language projected back in time. But this doesn't guarantee they all belong to the same protolanguage, as each recontructed protoform has its own diachronic and diatopic constrainst.
> 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).
>
I've seen serious proposal of deriving Basque and Burushaski from PIE in despite of they not being IE languages. Even assuming there was no language replacement anywhere IE languagas were historically attested (a most unlikely scenario), the monolithic PIE model can't go further back than late Neolithic. Anything which happened before can't be explained by that model.
> > 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.
>
Even if you were right (I don't think so), this along won't explain why the Celtic word acquired the specific meaning of 'son' regardless of what other IE languages did. Perhaps you might remember I had a similar discussion with Brian regarding De Vaan's etymology of Latin vitrum 'glass, woad' from IE *wed-ro- 'water-like'.
> 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.
>
AFAIK, Celtic isn't a Vasco-Caucasian language, so there's no possible gentic link.
> Anyway, how would You explain *makwo-s (with just one /kw/)?
>
Which language is this supposed to belong to? All we've got is Goidelic *makk-o- and P-Celtic *map-o-.