Re: Ligurian

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

>
> > Then tell me why how could Basque, Iberian, Etruscan and other non-IE
> > languages exist in Europe?
>
> Only an affiliation to a linguistic family is demonstrable; lack
> of affiliation is never a granted conclusion. So the non-IE status of
> Iberian, unless its affiliation to a non-IE family should be
> demonstrated, runs the risk to be only provisional.
>

AFAIK, nobody has ever insinuated Iberian could be an IE language. In fact, it looks more similar to Basque than to any other language. I'll give you a sample of one of the earliest Iberian texts (La Serreta lead foil I) so you can judge for yourself:

ir´ike orti gar´okan dadula bas´k buis´tiner bagar´ok [sssx<] tur´[a]bai[d]ur´a legus´egik baser´okeiunbaida ur´ke basbidir´bartin ir´ike baser´okar tebind belagasikaur´ isbinai asgandis tagisgar´ok binike bin s´alir kidei gaibigait

sakar´isker´ arnai

The last sentence is a property formula: I am of Sakar´isker´.

> Apart from Etruscan, whose arrival in Etruria may be relatively
> late (according to the everlasting debate about its origin from
> Anatolia - be it an Indo-European language or not), the linguistic
> colonization of Europe in Prehistory is in no way a single-place trip;
> every language can have taken part to the first anthropization of the
> Continent.
>

You should have said the *successive* colonizations of Europe, because they were two of them (Aurignician and Gravettian) in the Upper Paleolithic, followed from a more recent one in the Neolithic.

> > As I said before, "PIE" isn't a real language. That's all.
>
> Do You see? PIE cannot be a real language just because You have
> *said* it. Note that You have never given any demonstration. You act
> as if You were a God: what You say must be real, everything that
> contradicts to what You say must be false.
>

On the contrary, I've given several reasons which lead to that conclusion, and this is precisely why my own model is closer to Villar's than to Alinei's or your own. The only real language IE-ists' "PIE" can at best approximate is the paleo-dialect of the Steppes, which apparently acted as a superstrate to other paleo-varieties in the genesis of the historical IE languages.

> > From French lande (a direct descendant of the Gaulish form), dialectal
> > Portuguese branda and Gascon brana 'heath', we can reconstruct a Celtic
> > protoform *Flanda: 'heath, uncultivated land'. In Insular Celtic and
> > elsehwere, this word shifted its meaning to 'fallow land' and ultimately
> > to 'land', probably linked to the spread of new agricultural
> > technologies.
>

A little correction: the Portuguese word doesn't means 'heath' but 'highland pasture/hamlet'.

> Your etymologies are in no way incorrect; we could pleasantly
> discuss about them (I'd have some objections about details),
>

I'd glad to do so.

> but it would be useless because Your fundamental *error* is that You never
> consider that two or more possibilities can compete.
>

By no means this is correct.

> In Your 'humble'
> opinion, Your hypotheses are automatically 100% sure
> so there's never room for other hypotheses.
>

This is far from truth.

> You don't even consider a scenario in which
> Your hypothesis has 90% or 50% or 20% of probability, according to the
> amount of other competing hypotheses.
>

I'm afraid this isn't a matter of quantity but rather of *quality*. The postulate of "all things being equal" doesn't hold here.

> As You see, I'm not tied to my ideas: I have a gigantic scheme in
> which every theory - Your one as well - can find its proper place; in
> this scheme there are some hypotheses that I particularly like, other
> ones that I develop just because they haven't been considered till
> now, but my goal is to build a hierarchy of probabilities, where even
> the less probable - but always rational - hypothesis can be the really
> true explanation.
>

And of course, your own hypothesis is always at the top.

> If on one side I propose palaeolithic PIE
> etymologies, on the other side I'm compelled to take into
> consideration the opposite extreme, as e.g. Your model.
>

My model isn't actually "the opposite extreme" of yours. In fact, I agree with you that the last common ancestor of all IE languages was spoken in the Upper Palaeolithic, but unfortunately it has little to do with the "PIE" reconstructed in the 19th century by neogrammarians using the comparative method.

> So, a confrontation of both models cannot emerge from our
> discussion. For me, it's much more useful that You write and propose
> new etymologies (instead of declaring that mine are wrong); for You,
> my arguments are completely devoid of value, so it would be the same
> or even better if I wouldn't express them. In sum, this discussion has
> been a tremendous waste of time for both. It has been, moreover, a
> further proof that a scientific discussion is often impossible.
> When You'll propose a new etymology, I'll be happy (this is
> automatically valid from now onwards, as it was before); when I'll
> propose a new etymology, You'll write that You "strongly disagree" and
> You'll bring no arguments except a different etymology of Yours, but
> I'll try to avoid any reply, because what You consider rational is
> just dogmatism for me and what I consider rational is consequence of
> an unwarranted assumption - and therefore wrong (which is, in my
> opinion, a false conclusion) - for You.
>

On the contrary, I see dogmatism on your part, namely your adherence to the traditional PIE model which can only describe with a reasonable degree of accuracy the more recent stages in the development of the IE family.

> Please keep me and us informed of Your etymologies
>

I'll continue to do so. And please stop writing "you" with an initial capital.