From: dgkilday57
Message: 69494
Date: 2012-05-03
>I should clarify that I do not know what is in your book. What I characterize as "baloney" is the assignment of Porcobera and the place-names in Borm- and Barg- to Celtic, and the resulting warping of the accepted notion of Celtic to include ad-hoc "archaic" dialects conserving inherited /p/.
> 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:Quid est deridendum. Some of the Ligurian names have /e/-grade in *berg- (see Petracco-Sicardi). I do not deny the existence of Gaulish names in Liguria, or Liguro-Gallic hybrids like Bodincomagus. My position is that the Ligurian stratum is pre-Celtic.
> > 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:I meant Pedersen, mea culpa. But we already have Gaulish personal names on Lepontic inscriptions and coins. Whatmough explained this easily in 1933, and he referred to the inscc. as "Kelto-Liguric" (i.e. Ligurian with Celtic superstrate). We have Latin names in Etruscan inscc., and that does not make Etruscan an Italic language.
> > 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:Strength in numbers, eh? 200 etymologies can't be wrong?
> > 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:All right, a John Lennon one-world type. I can live with that.
> > 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:I stand corrected. I didn't realize how you differ from Alinei.
> > 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:All right, you have clarified your position.
> > 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:I think we should discuss Petracco-Sicardi's etymologies involving *bHerg^H-.
> > 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:That could equally well be Ligurian (in my sense), given Nevidunus (saltus) against Gallo-Latin Noviodunum.
> > 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 Ãth 'Ford' + X
> (Paradebeispiel: Ãth 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' (â*h1iah2- 'go' < â*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. Ãth Bó = Bobbiate, Ãth Carr = Carate, Ãth Caoin = Cenate,
> Ãth Cliath = Cedate, Ãth Cúile = Cugliate, Ãth Fearna = Vernate, Ãth
> Garbháin = Garbagnate, Ãth Lóich = Locate (old Leocade), Ãth Malain =
> Malnate, Ãth 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*Excuse me? What about Reate (modern Rieti), home of Varro? What about the comment about Sacrani from Reate driving Ligurians and Sicels out of the Septimontium (Paulus ex Festo)?
> 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'I think you overwhelm yourself with your own ingenuity. You still have not explained Reate, far from any Celtic influence.
>
> Let's see: Ãth Nó < Celtic *Ia:tus nowos 'new ford'; *Nowo-ia:tus
> > Latin *Nouoia:tus > Romance â Novoggiate: it doesn't work
> But let's try again: Ãth 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 â -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 canThe first time in history! Somebody here should have a colossal marble statue erected in his honor!
> *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) (= WelshReate, Reate, Reate.
> 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' (=e) continue developing my theory
> '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:Probability refers to the future. In dealing with the past, what counts is plausibility. This cannot be objectively defined, and we are not dealing with concrete cases. That should not bother us.
> > 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