Re: Ligurian

>> 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 the same way we've got a Latinized form Complu:tum from Celtiberian
> *Comblu:tom, with the labial conserved.

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
If You think that *Pla:rius > Piario is a Latinization of
**Bla:rios, why didn't it take place in place-names beginning with
Celtic /Bl-/? And again, You don't have explained why /p/ in Parre

Tavi:

>
> It looks like the loss of Proto-Celtic *F didn't happensimultaneously in
> all Celtic languages, and some of them retained it in the /bl/ cluster
> long enough to appear in writing (e.g. Gallaecian Bleitasama), and
> Goidelic has also -bl- intervocally. But in the case of Celtiberian,
> analogy with -br- < IE *-pr- could have also been involved.

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
No. Preservation of /p/ as /b/ AFTER both /l/ and / or /r/ IS
pan-Celtic, not just dialectal or just in time to emerge in writing;
only in initial position it's just YOUR hypothesis

Tavi:

>
> The case of Porco- in Porco-bera is different, as it doesn't look to be
> Celtic at all. You can't simply assume all the toponyms from a given
> area belong to a single language (either Celtic or not). And even
> compounds toponyms can got their members from two different languages
> (e.g. Ipon-uba). Villar explains this in more detail.

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
You assume that Porcobera isn't Celtic, that *Pla:rios is
'Celtic', and Parra > Parre?

Tavi:

>
> As I see it, the "PIE" reconstructed by IE-ists represents a later stage
> (and certainly not a real protolanguage) within the IE family whose
> antiquity is Late Neolithic at the most (in some cases it's even more
> recent), so it it can't valid for older stages.

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
"It can't be valid for older stages" AS YOU SEE IT, that's
obvious. You still have given no reason for this assumption. It's just
Your word. Until You don't demonstrate it, it is like conceding that
I'm right

Tavi:

> I'm afraid this is an intrinsic limitation of the comparative method
> when only internal IE data is used as input. In order to get further
> back in the past, you need also comparative data from other families
> such as Altaic.

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
Sure, but there's still a period of time in which only PIE has
been the relevant language (and Altaic was already separated). You
reduce this period to a minimum; it's just Your hypothesis, not a fact

Tavi:

>
>> "Español" is a Castilian word,
>>
> Likely borrowed from Occitan, as we would expect a native form
> *españón instead.

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
Yahoo-crash. I can't read it

Tavi:

>> I agree with the theories of the IE affiliation of Basque and
>> Burushaski (and this is certainly not part of a "Traditional Model"),
>>
> You can't be *serious*!

Bhrihskwobhlousktroy:
I'm serious, but this isn't relevant here. Our discussion would be
exactly the same even if I didn't agree with those theories

Tavi:

> You're simply projecting traditional "PIE" outside its
> chronological scope many millenia into the past, instead of replacing it
> with a new reconstruction valid for that period.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
its chronological scoper isn't known by You any more than by me,
so You can't base Your argument on what You don't know better than me.
Whether a reconstruction is valid for a period cannot be judged by
Your taste. As far as *we* can know, there's still no means to assign
a specific absolute chronology to a given reconstruction; Your
hypothesis can work, mine (ours) too

Tavi:

>
> Your model relies on a bunch of unwarranted assumptions such as the
> absence of prehistoric language replacements or that PIE morphology
> existed in the Upper Paleolithic.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
As I have already stated, the absence of prehistoric language
replacements is a consequence of my etymologies, not their
assumptions. Neither I nor You can make statements about what happened
in Prehistory; we can only build models.
There's mothing intrinsically incoherent in assuming that PIE
morphology existed in the Upper Palaeolithic, unless You believe in a
particular version of Glottochronology (it would be Your right, but
You'd have the duty to give a demonstration of such a version)

Tavi:

>
>> (...) PIE *mh2k'- 'raise, grove' is a sufficient cognate.
>> 'raised' (*-wo-PPP) > 'son'. Too hypothetical?
>>
> What about the other IE languages?
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
There's no difficulty. 'Raised' gets lexicalized as 'son' in just
one class. Nothing strange. Such lexicalizations always happen, even
in just one class

Tavi:

> I don't refuse any genetic link apriori, but you must be aware of the
> limitations of the comparative method as regarding *distant*
> relationships. The intrinsical flaw of "Nostratic" theories is they
> posit genetic relationships on the basis of loanwords, because they're
> unable to differentiate them from *inherited* lexicon.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You too are unable to distinguish possible loanwords from possibly
inherited forms. Same flaw

Tavi:

> For that matter, I don't think we're dealing with an IE word.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
As long as You don't give any explanation of it, I am winning at
least this particular discussion. Thank You for having competed

Tavi:

>
> How would explain then the geminate -kk- in Goidelic? Your hypothesis of
> this being an IE word is most unlikely.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
-kk- < PIE *-kn- + accented vowel (Stokes's Law)
'Likely' or not is just Your taste. Probably You'd find that I'm
unpleasant: same question of taste. Your taste can be interesting, but
has no particular scientific force. So, my hypothesis, albeit disliked
by You, maintains its validity. Bye bye