2012/5/1, dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>:
> Without seeing your book, I will not label it "baloney".
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
That would be too marked; in fact I've written that I suspect that
You'd perceive it as "baloney" *once I'd sent You a copy of it*.
Anyway, You response is already at the end of Your message ("Your
methodology does TOO MUCH, but I doubt that anyone can convince you of
the folly of that": that means that the more I try to demonstrate my
thesis with a normal procedure - etymology according to accepted sound
laws - the more You'd be convicted that I'm wrong; so I have to
restart the discussion from the question about the set of Ligurian
sound-laws - as You correctly underline below)
> DGK:
> What I fail to understand is why you should invoke an /o:/-grade in the
> first place, unless it is a mere red herring intended to distract attention
> from the straightforward analysis of Ligurian toponyms in Barg- as
> reflecting Lig. *barg-, equivalent to Celt. *brig- and Gmc. *burg-, from PIE
> *bHr.g^H-.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
What's straightforward is the comparison between Barga and the
root *bherg'h- in its meaning 'hill, mountain'. When it comes to the
question of the root's ablaut grade, one should at least take into
consideration all the five of them (we have no means of knowing the
vowel quantity of /a/):
1) *bhrg'h- > *barg- with vocalic */r/ > /ar/ as in Greek, Anatolian,
Armenian, Iranian
2) *bherg'h- > *barg- with */e/ > /a/ as in Iranian and Indic
3) *bhorg'h- > *barg- with */o/ > /a/ as in Germanic, Baltic,
Messapian, Albanian, Anatolian, Iranian and Indic
4) *bhe:rg'h- > *barg- with */e:/ > /a:/ as in Germanic
5) *bho:rg'h- > *barg- with */o:/ > /a:/ as in Celtic
(Note that no possible outcome is like in Latin or Italic)
The spare formation on *bherg'h- that we can detect in the ancient
Ligurian area are - beside Barga - Bargagli (Genoa; cf. Bergalei in
the Tabula Clesiana, now Bregaglia = Upper Mera / Maira Valley [North
of Lake Como], Grisons, Switzerland), Briaglia (Cuneo), and Bregançon
< Brigantio.
Bargagli : Bergalei would suggest solution n° 2, but then one
should explain away Briaglia (apparently formed with the same suffixal
complex) and Brigantio as Celticisms, in areas that Ancient Authors
ascribe to the Ligurians. Solution n° 1 (Your favourite one) has the
same shortcoming and is compelled to consider Bargagli and Bergalei
different ablaut formations. Solution n° 5 is the only one that opts
for an outcome found in a neighbouring class, i.e. Celtic, has the
advantage of keeping free for Ligurian (again, as in Celtic, quite
coherently with previous hypothesis) the outcome of vocalic */r/ as
/ri/ (and therefore ascribe Brigantio and Briaglia to the Ligurians,
without postulating special Celtic immigrations) and, just like Your
favourite solutions, distinguishes Bargagli and Bergalei as different
ablaut grades. I can't see any advantage in solutions nn. 3 and 4, so
I leave them. As a result, solution n° 5 is preferable, event if
Ligurian shouldn't be Celtic for the rest. Q.E.D.
> DGK:
> In Kretschmer's view, Ligurian was not a lost language, but recorded in the
> inscription of Ornavasso; the language was later designated "Lepontic" by
> Danielsson to avoid controversy over whether or not it was Celtic. Not only
> K. but Pederson, Dottin, Vetter, Whatmough, and other scholars agreed that
> Lepontic is not Celtic.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
After Prestino's <Uvamokozis> < *Upömo-ghostis, every Celtologist
agrees that Lepontic is completely Celtic, so Kretschmer's theory has
to be radically modified at least for Lepontic (BTW You meant
Pedersen, don't You?)
> DGK:
> And unless you have a comprehension problem, you know that K. provided
> additional evidence: *Bormita, the gods Bormanus, Bormana, Bormanicus, etc.
> His paper does not reconstruct a whole language on the basis of two
> place-names, as your rhetoric implies.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I've written "two place-names"; I correct: "two place-name stems";
their enumeration - *bormo- and *debel- - remains unchanged, so it's a
matter of terminology. OK, Kretschmer has built his theory on *two
place-name stems*; I've built mine on more than 200 place-name stems
(and their are just the basis; 700 more can be added as a
consequence). Is it OK?
> DGK:
> Perhaps you should move to the U.S.
> and become a Republican talk-radio host.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I'm a Eurasianist (i.e. I desire a political Union between Western
Countries, Russia, China, India, and Islamic Countries); I'd Enemy N°
1 in a Republican environment...
> DGK:
> Anyhow, it appears
> to me that your knowledge of Celtic etymology has been put to an ill use in
> Liguria. Evidently you are one of the Super Mario Brothers, belonging to
> Mario Alinei's brotherhood of palaeolithic continuitists,
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Between Alinei's theory and my own one there's more difference
than between mine and Yours (e.g. for this specific point under
discussion: You classify Ancient Ligurian as an Indo-European language
for its own, of 'centum'-kind, with */bh/ > /b/ and so on; I as a
Celtic language, that is with exaclt these features, just adding
locally restricted dephonologization of */p/; Alinei thinks that
*Ancient* Ligurian was an 'Italid' - in his words - language,
Indo-European and centum but with */bh/ > /f/ - as in *Bhertor >
Fertor, now Bisagno [Genoa] - quite like Kretschmer's Venetic, based
on the same example)
> DGK:
> and your mind was
> made up years ago that no prehistoric linguistic replacement occurred.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
For Your knowledge, it results that I'm still the last man who has
published a monography (800 p.) about no less than the 'Mediterranean'
substrate (on whose existence now I cast radical doubts because I
ascribe its lexicon to Celtic and Italic). This means that 1) I change
my ideas (I don't if this is good, but it's anyway a fact), and 2) I
know what I'm criticizing. At that time, I admitted the existence of
Kretschmer's Venetic in Liguria (Fertor), like Alinei; after having
read Alinei's book, no more. So my ideas are become more distant from
Alinei's ones after the publication of his books (this isn't neither
good nor bad, it's a fact).
> DGK:
> Therefore, your toponomastic program is the mere drone-work of inventing
> conceivable (not even plausible) Celtic etymologies
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You still have to explain what's less plausible in a lengthened
grade with collective or appurtenance meaning for a name of a mountain
hamlet than in a zero-grade, especially when this zero-grade is a mere
levelling of a PIE ablauting paradigm (with lengthened grade as well).
> DGK:
> for all place-names
> where Celts are historically known to have lived, and if you get stuck with
> something like Porcobera, you defy established Celtic studies and invent an
> "archaic Celtic" which retained initial /p/ right up to Roman times and
> beyond.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Facts:
1) In Ireland there are place names of the structure Áth 'Ford' + X
(Paradebeispiel: Áth Cliath); O'Rahilly in 1943 has detected an older
layer with posponed -ad (where /d/ < */t/ regularly in post-posttonic
position)
2) OIr. áth < PIE *h1iah2-tu-s 'passage' (√*h1iah2- 'go' < √*h1ei- 'go')
3) In Western Romance Countries there's a toponymic layer with final -at
4) These place-names are often named after the rivers along which
such places are situated (e.g. Agognate on Agogna river, Terdobbiate
on Terdoppio, Arnate on Arno [Lombardy], Lonate on Olona, Lambrate on
Lambro, Beverate on Bevera, Brembate on Brembo, Seriate on Serio);
5) Their locations are not just like any other one; they are
precisely where the principal ancient roads between prehistoric
centres (Como, Bergamo, and so on) crossed those rivers (particularly,
the two Brembate are where Adda river is crossed by the road between
Bergamo and Como and respectively between Bergamo and Milan, whose
site was topographically relevant also before 600 BC because is 2m
higher than the surrounding plain and therefore could emerge as an
island from the ancient moor)
4) There are regular correspondences between Irish and Romance
names, e.g. Áth Bó = Bobbiate, Áth Carr = Carate, Áth Caoin = Cenate,
Áth Cliath = Cedate, Áth Cúile = Cugliate, Áth Fearna = Vernate, Áth
Garbháin = Garbagnate, Áth Lóich = Locate (old Leocade), Áth Malain =
Malnate, Áth Nó = Novate [still transparent], and many more
5) These correspondences fall together with hundreds of Western
Romance (and, in this case, specifically Lombard) place-names
completely identical with Celtic names (e.g. Duno [Varese] = dún)
6) Pre-Roman inscriptions in the area of -ate-names are *only*
Lepontic and Gaulish, therefore only Celtic (other linguistic layers
can theoretically have been present, but till now one has not found
any contemporary evidence of them)
Working hypothesis: -ate = OIr. áth 'ford'
Let's see: Áth Nó < Celtic *Ia:tus nowos 'new ford'; *Nowo-ia:tus
> Latin *Nouoia:tus > Romance †Novoggiate: it doesn't work
But let's try again: Áth Nó < Celtic *Ia:tus nowos 'new ford' < PIE
*H1iah2tus ne/owos; *Nowo-h1iah2tus > Late PIE *Nowo:ja:tus > Celtic
*Nowa:ja:tus > *Nowa:a:tus (regular loss of /j/ between identical
vowels) > Gaulish *Noua:tus > Latin *Noua:tus > Romance Novate: it
works!
Consequences
1) -ate-names mean indeed 'fords'
2) they really correspond to Irish áth-phrases and -ad-compounds
3) they are made of Celtic lexemes
4) they must have been generated *as compounds* before the Late IE
loss of laryngeals (otherwise they would yield †-oggiate, not -ate)
5) as facts nn. 4-5 show, these place-names cannot have been
trasferred from elsewhere (like e.g. York > New York), they are
precisely place-names explicitly coined for their very places (unless
the whole river net has been transplanted; but Lombard river names
very rarely have correspondents North of the Alps, they don't belong
to the Old European layer, they are rather 'Mediterranean')
6) therefore, pre-Late PIE was spoken in these places when these
place-names have been coined
7) other compounded place-names in the same region with same
compounding members (e.g. *bri:ua: 'bridge') show phonological
treatments (e.g. neognós-rule) that imply the action of a Common PIE
(not simply pre-PIE) phonological rule (it would have been no more
operating as early as the Late IE phase)
8) these place-names have passed through the whole diachronic
phonology from PIE to Gaulish
9) no trace of any other diachronic phonology can be found (Iike
epigraphical evidence, see fact n° 6)
10) therefore, Cisalpine Celtic has directly developed from local
PIE (the whole lexicon is Celtic; the whole diachronic phonology is
Celtic; there's no trace of other phonologies)
11) since those 'Mediterranean' *river*-names can be etymologized
through IE lexicon (and Celtic diachronic phonology) and alternative
etymologies (e.g. Basque ones) are either much weaker on phonological
ground or (more often) lack at all, those river-names cannot be
considered as relics of pre-IE languages
This is the first time in the History of Linguistics that one can
*linguistically* demonstrate that PIE has been spoken in a specific
place. (Note that this doesn't mean that PIE wasn't spoken in other
regions; it only means that these regions belonged to the PIE Homeland
- be it the precise Urheimat or not, in any case it was during the PIE
phase and not later)
(Kretschmer's Theory was anyway more weakly argumented.)
Given these consequences, pairs like La:rius (Lake Como) (= Welsh
llawr, bottom ground of a valley): *Pla:rius (> Piario [Bergamo]; on
the bottom of its valley) are best explained as Celtic La:rius vs.
'Late IE' *Pla:rius. This coincides with Your view. If You doesn't
like to lable such Late PIE 'Celtic', it's just a matter of
terminology.
The crucial point is that Late PIE *Pla:rius doesn't not represent
a preceding linguistic layer, but simply an older phase. What You
can't do is to infer that the whole area between Orobian Alps (where
Piario is) and Maritime Liguria (where Porcobera flows) had non-Celtic
features (like /ar/ from syllabic /r/) before the Celts, because such
divergences in developments would have been registered in the PIE -ate
names, which is not the case.
So, You can only have 'not-yet-Celtic' (=
'never-become-fully-Celtic') features, but never 'anti-Celtic'
features (i.e., features that would have had to come up as
incoherences - if they had really taken place - in the diachronic
phonologyu implied by -ate-names).
You didn't know all this before.
Now You can:
a) refuse this theory and all other theories (You'll be a Skeptical)
b) refuse this theory and accept weaker theories (You'll be incoherent)
c) accept this theory and other theories as well (You'll be open-minded)
d) accept this theory and reject other ones, incompatible with
this one (You'll have changed Your mind)
> DGK:
> I do not have a convincing etymology for Ingauni, but that does not make
> Patrizia's punk-rock 'Tattooed Ones' better than nothing. Serious
> etymologists know their limitations. You do not, since you have already
> bragged that you can Celticize any place-name I throw at you. Your
> methodology does TOO MUCH, but I doubt that anyone can convince you of the
> folly of that.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Etymologists' limitation are, as far as I can see:
i) lack of any comparison (e.g. in unknown linguistic areas)
ii) lack of external linguistic data (e.g. for prehistoric
Finland; we do have FU and, more generally, Uralic comparisons, we
have IE comparisons, but we don't have ancient pieces of evidence)
iii) lack of a specific diachronic phonology independently founded
(e.g. for Thracian or Dacian: we have IE lexical comparisons, but no
Thracian or Dacian lexicon - only names - so we must circularly build
our diachronic phonology upon the etymologies we are proposing, since
no other known diachronic phonology happens to work in this context
with these comparisons)
iv) irreductible competition of comparisons or external data or
diachronic phonologies
In the case of Liguria and Cisalpine Gaul, we do have comparisons
(surely IE; maybe Basque; maybe something else as well); we do have
external linguistic data (Celtic inscriptions); we can coherently
apply Celtic diachronic phonology; we can also build other phonologies
(Kretschmer's ones), based on less evidence and just on names.
So, we have competing comparisons, univoque esternal linguistic
data, and competing phonologies (but with different degrees of
probability). Therefore, we can continue in producing PIE etymologies
with Celtic diachronic phonology. We can, this is beyond doubt; are we
also afforded to do that? This is Your real question.
Your answer is 'no', this is clear. I'd like to know why, because
I am not able to find - in this concrete case - an objective line not
to be trespassed