2012/4/29, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>> You know that I've proposed a PIE etymology for -ipo(n) (: Greek
>> aip'y) < PIE *h2ip-on-.
>No, I don't know.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
nevertheless You have already denied it. It's in my
'Großindogermania' paper. So You have refuse it without reading it
all. It's Your right (and this gives an idea of Your impartiality,
which is however quite spread among humans)
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) Gaulish has -bo:na:, not - here - -bona:)
> Once again: what's the evidence for a long vowel here?
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
"Once again"? Aren't You able to read? Don't You read my answers?
Latin language is the evidence; prosody: never heard of it? If it's
not enough, Juliobo:na > French Lillebonne provides the final proof;
even if You believe in de Bernardo Stempel's theory of Gaulish
thorough penultimate accent, a Gaulish *Juliobóna: with accented short
penultimate would yield French †Lillebeune
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) 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.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>> 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,
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Is Your opinion so "humble" that we have to imagine it without the
slightest statement on Your part? How could we understand? Was it
really necessary to waste five messages before You graciously gave us
a hint in that direction?
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) - 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.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
If You think that the Orobic form has /F/, how do You explain its
rendering as [p] (same for Pliny's name, Plinius Caluos, with caluos =
Lithg plynas; The Elder Pliny was born on the Larius)? And how would
You explain [p] in neighbouring Parre (Pliny's Parra), whose
phonological context (like Porcobera's) doesn't fit Your rule?
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) 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.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
PIE was a 'diasystem', diatopic constraints affect the varying
territorial distribution of the word along time, diachronic
constraints only mean that somtimes somewhere the word has gone out of
usage, but as a product of the language system it has always been in
existence at least from the beginning of the PIE phase. "Español" is a
Castilian word, Latin has Hispanicus (with a somewhat differnt
meaning), but *Hispaniolus did exist in Latin *system*; same for every
IE word
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...)
>> 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.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I agree with the theories of the IE affiliation of Basque and
Burushaski (and this is certainly not part of a "Traditional Model"),
as for the rest I don't subscribe the "Traditional Model", I believe
that after an initial monolithic PIE (spoken in Early Upper
Palaeolithic by a few hundreds thousand people) there have been
hundreds of regional PIEs. Stating that "the monolithic PIE model
can't go further back than late Neolithic" means that it's You that
subscribe the "Traditional Model", for this matter, but this is Your
right. Stating that "Anything which happened before can't be explained
by that model" is simply falsified by me. This is the end of Your
negationism.
I know very well (You write an average of 20 messages per day)
that Your model is different, but You CAN'T deny that my model works
at least as well as Yours. You may don't like it, but it works, unless
You demonstrate that my model is *internally* incoherent. Until You
limit Yourself to write generic negations, You are in fact implicitly
admitting that I'm right.
Note that I never deny the validity of Your model. Till now I've
just written that Your hypothesis about Orobic is incoherent and
stated why I think so. On the contrary, You continuously try to
denigrate my model using in a disappointing way a couple of polite
expressions ("I'm afraid that", "IMHO") that always introduce very
unpolite pragmatical statements. A discussion with You would be much
more interesting if You were just a bit more *really* polite
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) 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'.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
'raised' (*-wo-PPP) > 'son'. Too hypothetical?
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) 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.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Thank You very much for Your precious piece of information! Do You
think I'm claiming that Celtic is a Vasco-Caucasian language?
Consider for instance Catalan and English. Catalan isn't a
Germanic language nor is English a Romance language. Nevertheless,
there are genetic links between the two. These links are called
Indo-European. Similarly, Celtic isn't a Vasco-Caucasian language and
Basque isn't a Celtic language; nevertheless, there can be genetic
links other than directly in a same language class. I call these links
Indo-European or, hypothetically, Nostratic; You (and many others)
refuse an IE affiliation of Basque, do You refuse a genetic link
between Vasco-Caucasian and IE? If yes, Your statement is right (in
Your model); if no, it's wrong (even in Your model).
————————————————————————————————
Tavi:
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
(...) 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-.
————————————————————————————————
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
So, You don't even accept that P-Celtic /p/ reflects PIE */kw/
(otherwise You would have understood, wouldn't You?). Are You assuming
that I'm making a gross mistake in deriving - at least as a working
hypothesis - *mapos from *makwos? And that IE studies are grossly
wrong? Is this diachronic possibility wrong?
In that case, once again, what's please (please) Your superior
idea? Are You a God who has to be properly addressed, otherwise He
doesn't answer? I pray You, Lord graciously hear us