Re: Ligurian

2012/4/30, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
> I think it would be useful to introduce the concept of "Para-Celtic"
> languages. Take for example the Rhaetian name of a kind of wheeled
> plough, glossed by Plyny as plaumoratum. This word, together with other
> forms in Rhaeto-Romance and Alpine Italian dialects derivated from
> *plovum can be linked to the Celtic word for 'rudder', reconstructed by
> Matasovic as *Flow-jo-,*Flow-ja:, which in turn is derivated from IE
> *pleu- 'to flow, to float' (Greek pléo: 'to sail'). I got this idea
> from Alinei (2000): Origini delle lingue d'Europa II, pp. 879-884.
>
> Of course, the word 'plough' in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic is an Iron
> Age Wanderwort from this root with a velar extension *-g-.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

You still haven't explained Parra nor why only *Bla:rios should
have been rendered as *Pla:rius and other place-names with initial
/bl-/ not.
I notice that You don't consider my etymology (inspired by
Christopher Gwinn) of plough < *blo:g(')hu-s > Irish blog 'fragment'
(in "Großindogermania" p. 65) nor admit another possible (and in my
opinion fullly acceptable as well) PIE etymology *blo:k(')-ú-s (: Gm.
pflegen). Didn't You know them?

>> This is the fourth time I pray You to see that the absence of
>> language replacements is NOT an assumption by my model, but the
>> consequence of its implementation. It's disappointing how You refuse
>> even the statements about my own model. It's my model, not Yours. I
>> know it better than You. In order to arrive at an opinion (because
>> it's just an opinion, like Your one) about the presence or absence of
>> language replacements in Prehistory - since there's no General Law
>> about language replacements - it's sufficient to rely on the mass of
>> PIE etymologies based on my only assumption, the projection of PIE
>> reconstructions (not even morphology: phonology and lexicon are
>> enough) back to before the Neolithic (there's no General Law as well
>> about the rate of linguistic change).
>>

Tavi:

> Which is a most *unwarranted* assumption typical of the PCT. And its
> consequence (i.e. the absence of language replacement in your model)
> reminds me of the Smith virus replication until it crowned everywhere in
> Matrix Revolutions (3rd film of the Matrix series).

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Every assumption must be unwarranted, otherwise we wouldn't need
models. Your assumption (presence of language replacements) is equally
unwarranted

>
>> Consider e.g. the name Newfoundland: we know from history when it was
>> born as name for that particular land, but the compound
>> *newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m is already PIE, i.e. PIE system already
> had
>> a compound *newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m, whose morpho-lexical meaning
>> was 'new found (place) where (humans) have put a cleavage'
>>

Tavi:

> I strongly disagree. The word Newfoundland is English and only English.
> And although similar constructions could be found in other languages,
> there's no point in reconstructing a "PIE" protoform.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
new < PIE *newos
found < PIE *pntó-
land < PIE *lomH-dhh1-om

ergo newfoundland < PIE *newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m.
This is the notion of linguistic system