Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> 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?
>

No, but I don't think they're any better than Alinei's proposal. Pretending everything must be inherited from "PIE" instead of borrowed is more an obsession than a true scientific approach.

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

Not really, because we've got the evidence in the form of toponymy and substrate loanwords.

> 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
>

Definitively not. Even if each individual lexemal were in fact inherited from "PIE", the compound is English (or Germanic at best), not PIE. BTW, the word land is a Celtic loanword into Germanic.