From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69496
Date: 2012-05-03
> 2012/5/3, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>> 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/.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> as I've already once written, this isn't our point of discussion.
> Celtic phonology is what it is and no one casts any doubt on it (to
> the contrary, I religiously follow usual Celtic reconstructions).
> Nor is the Celtic affiliation of Ligurian other than a matter of
> terminology. We could be satisfied with an indepedent IE class,
> labeled 'Ligurian'.
> What is really under discussion here is:
> did Ligurian language show diachronic phonological developments
> (from PIE) *different* from (i.e. absent in) Celtic? You say "yes", I
> say "no". This is the point and this has been the starting point of
> our discussion as well.
> If one (surely not You) agrees on "no", Ligurian phonology becomes
> automatically identical with the Late IE phase preceding Celtic. This
> is the meaning of "Archaic Celtic" on phonological level: centum
> treatment (innovation), */bh/ */dh/ */gh/ > /b/ /d/ /g/ (innovation),
> no consonant shift (retention), preservation of short /o/ ≠ /a/
> (retention). No other IE class would fit in (not even Phrygian, if one
> accepts bekos 'bread' : bake and Manezordum beside Manegordum).
>
>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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:
>> 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.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Ligurian names in /berg/ (like Bergeggi) and /borg/ (like Borgio;
> both with regular Late Latin palatalization and therefore
> pre-Germanic) very aptly exclude solutions nn. 2 and 3, not the other
> ones. All the rest being unchanged, solution n° 5 stil results the
> best one. Quod erat demonstrandum
>
>> DGK
>> 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.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Etruscan inscc. have plenty of Etruscan lexical items, Lepontic
> inscc. unfortunately much less of Lepontic lexical items, but
> nevertheless please show me that the majority of Lepontic lexicon
> contrasts with Celtic lexicon.
> You'll find <pala> and <pruuia>. <pala> can have many etymologies,
> so it neither proves nor disproves anything; <pruuia> /bruwya:/ :
> Gaulish bri:ua: 'bridge' insists on an onomasiologic difference in
> Celtic itself (bri:ua: vs. drochet).
>
> What's strange is that anywhere a univoque Celtic trace emerges in
> Liguria it's interpreted as the result of Celtic infiltration. This
> would be possible, although not sure.
> On the other side, all remaining Ligurian glosses and names can be
> Celtic (they are indeed so analyzable; You may think this isn't the
> best way of analyzing them, but in any case it's a correct way, and
> better or worse is a matter of discussion, their correctness isn't)
> except a couple of occurrences of PIE */p/ (Porcobera, Boplo - I
> myself have given a fresh etymology for it - while Pellius isn't
> diagnostic). I (with and after many others) draw the conclusion that
> Ligurian was predominantly completely Celtic and that there were
> isolated conservative pockets just like Piario east of Larius (or, on
> Larius itself, the very Plinius Caluos = Lith plynas 'bald') and
> Parra.
> Now, what's more probable? That all surely Celtic traces were
> casually the result of Celtic infiltrations or that the isogloss /p/ >
> 0 had left some areas untouched?
>
> You have written that Ligurian had, like Celtic, /b/ < */gw/ and
> (like only p-Celtic!) /p/ < */kw/. This means that:
> i) all Celtic and Ligurian had /b/ < */gw/ (BTW this is the first
> *specific Celtic* innovation - i.e. not common to Germanic or Italic
> as well - according to both Schrijver and Isaac; of course they don't
> take Ligurian into consideration)
> ii) all Celtic (but not Ligurian or, as Patrizia and I would say,
> not all Ligurian) had dephonologization of /p/
> iii) p-Celtic (not q-Celtic) and Ligurian had /p/ < */kw/.
> There are instances of <qu> in Ligurian names (e.g. Quiamelius);
> if they represent IE */kw/, this would mean that there were q-Ligurian
> (beside p-Ligurian) dialects. If such an incomplete diffusion of the
> innovation */kw/ > /p/ internally divides both Celtic and Ligurian,
> there's no reason to exclude that this can have been true for the
> dephonologization of PIE */p/ (which follows */gw/ > /b/) as well.
> This for /p/ and 'Archaic' Celtic.
>
> For /eu/ (not > /ou/) You implicitly maintain that /eu/ > /ou/ was
> no longer operative as the only Celts You admit in Cisalpine, after
> 600 BC(E) or even after the IVth c. BC(E) arrived to their historical
> seats, because /eu/ is thouroughly conserved in Pre-Roman place-names:
> in tonic position Leucum > Lecco, pretonic Leocade > Locate, in
> contrast with tonic ou > u: in Busto < Boustom = CIb. PouśTom,
> pretonic Cunardo : CIb. kouno-, Ir. 1 ard 'hill'.
> Pairs like Neuidunum : Nouiodunum can't be diagnostic because they
> are equally well analyzable as IE ablaut, a derivative pattern not
> less than suffixation in e.g. Celtic nouio- vs. nouo-.
> In my view, Celtic /eu/ > /ou/ is simply successive to the
> introduction of Cisalpine *-a:tus place-names into Cisalpine Latin
> (II. c. BC[E]; by that time [Provincial] Latin /ou/ as well was still
> a diphthong, cf. Ouf[entina tribus] in inscc. from Mediolanum and
> Comum), just as /ou/ > /o:/ took place after Caesar's conquest of the
> Gaul (cf. instead 16 BC[E] Vindobo:na < *Windo-bouna:, 43 AD
> Lo:ndinium < *Loundenion : *Loundonion > Llundein). Also this is
> perfectly possible.
> As anyone can see, the Pan-Celtic status of /eu/ > /ou/ depends
> i.a. on the acceptance of Celtic etymologies for -ate-place-names in
> Cisalpine. Nobody denies Celtic /eu/ > /ou/; it's just a matter of
> absolute and relative chronology. In order to be Pan-Celtic, the
> change should embrace *all* Celtic languages from the very beginning
> of the attestations or at least before the end of the attestations of
> the first disappeared Ancient Celtic languages.
> In any case, the absence of a Celtic innovation /eu/ > /ou/ is
> much less significant than an anti-Celtic development such as /ar/ <
> syllabic /r/ before stops. The Ligurian retention of /eu/ is therefore
> at most another archaic feature as against /ou/ < /eu/, but in no way
> sufficient to classify Ligurian as an independent IE class with its
> own innovations.
>
> You can't reject any of these consideration.
> Ligurian retention of PIE /p/ and /eu/ are conservative facts and
> therefore weakly significant.
> Full labialization of */gw/ and, later on and partially, */kw/ are
> innovations and are common to both Celtic and Ligurian.
> Before stops, /ar/ from syllabic */r/ is based on an example that
> can be equally well (until You prove the contrary; I've made my task)
> explained as from long */o:r/ and, moreover, at the cost (which I
> don't have to pay) of postulating Celtic infiltrations for cases of
> /ri/, /re/ < syllabic */r/ in Liguria: possible, but ad hoc and
> therefore a shortcoming if compared with my explanation.
> Full labialization of */gwh/ is based on two examples (*gwhormo-
> and *dhegwh-e-lis) that can be explained from */bh/. In this case the
> only invoked criterion is semantics, but remember that */gwh/ > /b/ in
> only paralleled by Latin -b- in internal position.
>
> In sum, the status of Ancient Ligurian as an independent IE class
> is based on:
> - *three* etyma,
> - of *place-names* (i.e. without full semantic verifiability; It.
> debbio isn't diagnostic, because it could reflect regular Gaulish
> *deuelo- < *dhegwh- as well as our ambiguous *debelo-)
> - and never with parallels in the diachronic phonology of
> neighbouring languages (it was Italic, not Latin, that bordered with
> Ligurian, cf. Briniates : *Frinianum > Frignano).
>
> On the contrary, the classification of Ancient Ligurian as:
> - a Western Late IE dialectal complex (on this we agree: centum,
> */bh/ */dh/ */gh/ > /b/ /d/ /g/),
> - taking part to early Celtic significant innovations (on this we
> agree as well: */gw/ > /b/)
> - and - maybe with local exceptions - even to p-Celtic (as well as
> Italic) innovations (here too we agree: */kw/ > /p/) diatopically
> partial,
> - at least suggests caution in assuming patently non-Celtic
> developments and, since it's in fact possible to explain the evidence
> through Celtic phonology, shows that it's more economic to avoid the
> postulation of an entire independent IE class, even at the modest
> 'price' of interpreting Aquae Bormiae (and the rest) as 'boiling'
> (*bher-) instead of simply 'warm' (*gwher-) and Barga as 'pertaining
> to mountains' (vrddhi) instead of 'mount' (which it isn't in fact;
> it's *on* a mountain, not itself a mountain).
>
>> DGK
>> Strength in numbers, eh? 200 etymologies can't be wrong?
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Etymologies can be a) correct or not and b) right or wrong.
> Correct = in full coherence with phonology, morphology, lexicon
> etc. of the implied language(s)
> Right = corresponding to historical reality.
> Even correct etymologies can be wrong. This applies to all of us. A
> good starting point would be etymological correctness. My etymologies
> are correct under (or 'from'?) an IE point of view (unter / von
> indogermanistichem Gesichtspunkt) and they are hoped to be
> celtologically correct as well. Kretschmer's etymologies are surely
> correct from an IE point of view, but they don't refer to any
> independently demonstrable IE class, so they are - rightly and
> necessarily - ad hoc.
> Therefore we have 200 correct etymologies vs. 2 ad hoc etymologies
> (their correctness from an IE point of view being equal).
> (What would You say if the respective proportions would be
> inverted? That Kretschmer's 200 etymologies can be wrong?)
>
>> DGK
>> I stand corrected. I didn't realize how you differ from Alinei.
>
> Alinei postulates a pre-Roman Latin-like (not simply "Late IE", as
> the label "Ibero-Dalmatian" or "Ibero-Adriatic" would let think, nor
> "Italic", as the label "Italoid" or "Italid" would suggest) language
> family from Lusitania to Illyricum (does this suggest anything to You)
> and that this family is the direct ancestor - not a mere substratum -
> of historical Romance languages. According to Alinei, such a family
> had been the result of the first arrival of Modern Humans in this
> area, who spoke a modified version of PIE (with centum treatment,
> */bh/ */dh/ */gh/ > /ɸ/ /θ/ /x/ and so on).
> I think - for this area (and without taking into consideration
> Basque and Iberian for this matter) - that PIE as such (stricto sensu
> and in its reconstructed prehistoric form) evolved directly in situ
> into Ancient Dalmatian, Venetic-istrian-Liburnian, Latin, Italic, and
> Continental Celtic, with marginal pockets of not completely
> 'developed' (in the sense of 'become completely Celtic) dialects, and
> - just like the overwhelmingly majority of historically interested
> people - that the Romans for the first time introduced in these areas
> (outside Rome itself) the Roman variant of ancient Latin dialects,
> this variant being the direct ancestor of historical Romance
> languages.
> As You see, there's nothing in common between Alinei and me except
> for the dating of the arrival of the first IE genealogical variety
> (itself different: an almost Italic IE for him, PIE for me)
>
>> DGK
>> I think we should discuss Petracco-Sicardi's etymologies involving
>> *bHerg^H-.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> OK, but we'd completely agree on that point. (A very small detail:
> her surname is Petracco Sicardi without hyphen, she was born Sicardi
> and had married a Petracco)
>>
>>> Facts:
>>> 1) In Ireland there are place names of the structure à th 'Ford' + X
>>> (Paradebeispiel: Ã th 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. à th Bó = Bobbiate, à th Carr = Carate, à th Caoin =
>>> Cenate,
>>> à th Cliath = Cedate, à th Cúile = Cugliate, à th Fearna = Vernate, Ã
>>> th
>>> Garbháin = Garbagnate, à th Lóich = Locate (old Leocade), à th Malain
>>> =
>>> Malnate, à th 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)
>
>> DGK:
>> That could equally well be Ligurian (in my sense), given Nevidunus
>> (saltus)
>> against Gallo-Latin Noviodunum.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> "Equally well"; You're right.
> What about following equations?
> Barzio : OIr. bairte
> Introbio : OIr. itropa
> Taceno : Welsh tag, OIr. en
> Crandola : Breton kran, OIr. 7 ol
> Margno : Middle Ir. mairne
> Casargo : Breton kasarc'h
> Indovero : Ir. indber
> Parlasco (XIIIth c. Perlasco) : Welsh (g[w]o-)br, OIr. lasc
> Vendrogno : Welsh gwyn, rhawn
> Tremenico : Welsh tremyn or Ir. tríamnach
> Introzzo : Oir. 1 étrochta
> Sueglio : Welsh huddigl
> Vestreno : Middle Welsh gwest, Breton rûn
> Corenno : OIr. cor, inn
> Dervio : Welsh derwenn
> Murcote : OIr. mor(rígain), cúa
> Perledo : Welsh (g[w]o-)br, llwyd
> Varenna : OIr. fáir, 1 rind
> Mandello : OIr. menn, Breton, Welsh gwell
> Borbino : OIr. borb, Welsh 1 -in
> Vassena : Welsh gwas
> Laorca : Or. ló, rech
> Vercurago : Welsh (g(w)orchordd, -og
> (Monte)marenzo : Oir. mór, étaim
> Brianza : OIr. Brigit
> (Val)madrera : Gaulish madera*, OIr. 3 aire
> Trebbia : Welsh tref
> Bartesago : Or. barr, tais, -ach
> Barro : OIr. barr
> Garlate : OIr. gair, Gaulish Lato-
> Consonno : OIr. conn, Breton sonn
> (Val)greghentino (885 Carcantinum) : Welsh carreg, Ir. étan, Welsh 1 -in
> Brivio : Gaulish -briua
> Airuno : OIr. 1 aile, 1 rún
> Campsirago : OIr. camm, sírach
> Calco (960 Calgo) : OIr. calg
> Arlate : Gaulish are, Lato-
> Imbersago (985 Amberciago) : Ir. amairsech
> Osnago : OIr. oissinech
> Lomagna : OIr. loman
> Missaglia (XIIIt c. Massalia) : OIr. máss, 2 aile
> Casirago : Ir. casrach
> Cremella : Breton krem, OIr. 3 ell
> Cassago : Ir. casach, Welsh 1 casog
> Bevera : Gaul. Bibra-
> Bernaga : Ir. bernach
> Oggiono : OIr. 2 og, Welsh llawen
> Imberido (XIIIth c. Amberado) : OIr. 2 imm, 1 rath
> Ello (XIIth c. Aello) : OIr. 1 adall
> Marconaga : Welsh marchonnen, -og
> Sirone : OIr. sír, on(-chú)
> Molteno : OIr. molt, en
> Brongio : OIr. bruinde
> Annone : OIr. an, on(-chú)
> Asso : OIr. ass, Welsh ach
> Rezzo, Rezzago : Middle Ir. reithe, -ach
> Caglio : Ir. 2 caile
> Sormano : Welsh Sôr, mawn
> Lasnigo (1206 Asenigo) : Welsh asenig
> Barni : Welsh barn
> Magreglio : OIr. mérl(-ach)
> Onno : OIr. onn
> (Val)brona : Welsh bro, OIr. on(-chú)
> Canzo, Canzaga : Ir. céite, -ach
> Caslino : Gaelic Caislín (Ir. 1 cais, 1 lín)
> Erba : OIr. erb
> Incino : Ir. éicne
> Buccinigo : Ir. Buaignech
> Longone : Irish 1 long, on(-chú)
> Segrino : Ir. seg, cf. rían
> Corneno : Welsh, OBret., MCorn., OIr. corn, OIr. en
> Suello : Bret. huzel
> Bosisio : Gaelic buidse
> (Costa) Masnaga (XIIIth c. Masenaga) : Welsh, Breton maen , OIr. magen,
> -ach
> Brenno : Gaulish Brennus
> Nibionno : Welsh 1 nyf, OIr. ond
> Tabiago : Welsh taflog
> Merone : Ir. 1 mer, on(-chú)
> Alserio : Ir. ail, ire
> Cremnago : OIr. crem, on(-chú), -ach
> Mariano (XIIth c. Marliano): Gaulish *margila, Welsh iawn
> Carimate (915 Canimallo) : Welsh 1 cain, mall
> Cantù (987 Canturi) : Ir. cét, ú(i)r
> Galliano : OIr. Galian
> Verzago (1060 Vertezago) : Ir. feirtche, -ach
> Rovello (Lat. Rodellum) : Ir. rodial
> Lomazzo (988 Lemacio) : Ir. 1 lemach
> Cirimido (859 Celemani) : Ir. ceilemain
> Veniano (1346 Vetegnano) : Welsh gw(y)den, iawn
> Appiano (XIIIth c. Aplano) : Gaulish -apa, -la:no-
> Guanzate (XIIth c. Vogonzate) : Gaulish Vocontii, OIr. áth
> Bulgaro(grasso) : Ir. bolg, 4 ar
> Caccivio : Welsh caeth, ywydd
> Oltrona (962 Altrona) : OIr. altr(-am), on(-chú)
> Beregazzo (1346 Baragazio) : Ir. 1 barrach, 2 áite
> Drezzo : Ir., Bret. dris, dres, Welsh drys
> Trévano : Welsh trefan
> Bizzarone (Oir. bidg, 4 ar, on(-chú))
> Caversaccio : Ir. cuairsce
> Cagno : Welsh 1 cain
> Concagno : Galatian Konko-, Ir. án
> Solbiate : Gaulish Su-, lubi, Ir. áth
> Albiolo : Welsh 1 elfydd, 1 ôl
> Faloppio : Welsh ffâl, Insubrian opulus
> Camnago : Welsh cafnog
> Luisago : Ir. lúisech
> Cadorago : Ir. cathrach
> Minoprio (1335 Minovrio) : Ir. mín, 1 brí
> Asnago : Ir. asnach
> Prestino : Welsh prys, 1 -in
> Senna : Or. sinnae GS
> Capiago : Ir. capp, -ach
> Lipomo : Ir. lic, mag
> Urago : Ir. úrach
> Solzago : Ir. soilsech
> Ponzate : Ir. cóicthe, áth
> Blevio : Welsh blew
> Cernobbio : OIr. 1 cern, (su-)bae, (du-)bae
> Moltrasio (1019 Maltraxe) : OIr. mall, tráige
> Bisbino : Breton biz, blin
> Urio : Ir. úir, úr
> Nesso : Welsh, Bret. nes
> Zelbio : Ir. gelb(-dae)
> Lemna : Welsh llwyfen
> Laglio : Welsh llaill
> Brienno : OIr. 1 brí, inn
> Argegno : Ir. airgen
> Dizzasco : cf. Gaulish Diuici-acus
> Cerano (1053 Clarani) : Ir. clár, Welsh clawr, iawn
> Erbonne : OIr. erb, onn
> Casasco : Ir. cass, MLatin (< Gaulish) ascuum 'pascuum'
> Blessagno : Ir. blisán
> Pellio, Peglio : Ir. cíall, Welsh pwyll
> Ponna : Ir. conn (if at least in part connected with cenn)
> Laino : Ir. 1 láith, Welsh 1 -in
> Colonno : Welsh 2 coll, OIr. onn
> Sala : OIr. sal f.
> Tavazzano : Welsh tafod, OIr. 2 án 'swift'
> Lenno : OIr. linn
> Bellagio (884 Beslacio) : Bret. bes, laguenn
> Tremezzo : Welsh tref, Ir. mide
> Griante : OIr. grían, étan
> Menaggio : Ir. menaige
> Grandola : Welsh gran, Ir. grend, 7 ol
> Bregagno : OIr. 1 brí, -án
> Sanagra : Welsh hanu, Ir. ér
> Rezzonico (Ravezonico) : Ir. Roe (Ptol. Rhaouíos), coí, on(-chú), -ech
> Cremia : Bret. krem
> Calozzo : Welsh call, CIb. (Pou)śTom
> Mianico : Ir. meile, ainech
> Garzeno : Ir. 2 gairge, en
> Germasino : OIr. gerr, cf. maigne
> Liro : Welsh llyr
> Livo : Ir. lí, Welsh lliw
> Domaso (851 Domacio) : Mod. Ir. dumhach
> Vercana : Gaulish uer-, Welsh cawn
> Trezzone : Ir. 4 tríath
> Colico (locally Colach) : Ir. colach
> Porlezza : Welsh pôr, Ir. 1 leithe
> Bene : Ir. benn
> Carlazzo : Welsh carleg
> Gottro (XIIIth c. Gotoro) : OIr. 1 got, 1 or
> Corrido : Welsh cyfred
> Soldo : Gaulish sold(-urii*)
> Albogasio : Gaulish albos, Ir. 1 géis
> Drano : OIr. drenn, drénd
> Loggio : OIr. lugae, luige
> Cressogno : Ir. Cresan, cres
> Claino : Ir. clad, Welsh cla(w)dd, 1 -in
> Osteno : OIr. Uisnech, Sc.Gael. oisinn
>
>>
>>> 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)
>
>> DGK:
>> 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)?
>>
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Rea:te n., commonly analyzed as a -te formation like Ates-te and
> Tea:-te; Ates-te with toponymic suffix -te on a basis like river name
> Ates-is (Adige).
> None, to my (little) knowledge, has proposed a *lexical* etymology for
> Rea:-.
> For what it may be worth, my hypothesis is a connection with river
> names R(h)e:nus (< Celtic *Re:nos) < PIE *Reinos < *h1/3reiH-no-s
> (√*h1/3reiH- 'flow'), parallel to Ates-te : Ates-is and with reference
> to the confluence of Velino and Turano rivers. Shortly, PIE
> *H1/3reiH-ah2-ti '(place) where (rivers) flow (together)' > *Reya:ti >
> Italic Rea:tí > Latin Rea:te.
>
> But Your question obviously isn't about the etymology of Reate
> (You have not given any etymology of this name); it rather implies
> that an -ate-place-name is found outside the area of the 200
> -ate-names of Transpadana and of Gallo-Romance place-names in (Prov.)
> -at, (French) -é.
> As You can infer from my etymology, I separate Rea:te from Irish
> áth. Not just that; I even separate a couple of dozens of
> -ate-place-names from áth, precisaly those ending in -rate (: Ir. 2
> ráith 'fort'), -biate (: bláth 'bloom'), and possibly -nate (if from a
> hypothetical Celtic *na:ti 'hill, rise': Gk. no:ton, Lat. natis;
> Ternate, XIIth c. Trinate, is on three hills).
> I don't think You are really maintaining that the form of a suffix
> has to be always of one and the same origin (so, for instance, Alaska
> isn't a Ligurian -asca name, although Piero Riva 1964 seems to believe
> that), especially if it occurs outside of the area of the rest of the
> names: French, Provençal, Rhaeto-Cisalpine are Western Romance
> languages, from Gaulish Imperial Latin, on a Continental Celtic
> substratum as the inscc. testify; Reate is in Sabina, quite far away,
> but above all in an Italic context that doesn't explain Ligurian /b/
> /d/ /g/ < */bh/ */dh/ */gh/ in any way (pace Festi).
>
>>> Working hypothesis: -ate = OIr. áth 'ford'
>>>
>>> Let's see: à th Nó < Celtic *Ia:tus nowos 'new ford'; *Nowo-ia:tus
>>> > Latin *Nouoia:tus > Romance †Novoggiate: it doesn't work
>>> But let's try again: à th 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
>
>> DGK:
>> I think you overwhelm yourself with your own ingenuity. You still have
>> not
>> explained Reate, far from any Celtic influence.
>>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Now I have, see above
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>> DGK:
>> Reate, Reate, Reate.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> see above, see above, see above
>
>> (...)
>>> 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:
>> e) continue developing my theory
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Until You won't have given a regular explanations for all the 700
> place-names I've mentioned, this will coincide with case b)
>
>>
>>> > DGK:
>>> > I do not have a convincing etymology for Ingauni, but that does not
>>> > make
>>> > Patrizia's punk-rock 'Tattooed Ones' better than nothing.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Don't Brithwyr and - of Celtic or Latin origin - Picti, Pictones,
> Pictavi tell You anything in favour of 'Tattoed Ones'? At least let
> Punk Rock in peace and mention Gaul and Britain
>
> (...)
>>> 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
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> having said that, You still haven't precised to what extent an
> etymologist can do his work and when his etymologies start to become
> "too many".
> I've exposed my reasons; I admit that I cannot do better than so.
> This means that You'll continue to think to be right and I'll continue
> in turn to think that I'm right, since I've replied to Your objections
> and anyone can see whether it suffices or not.
> If we'll be there, I foresee that in 2057 we'll be still amusingly
> discussing, unless new data will emerge.
> Now it has taken 4 hours and a half to write this reply, added to
> the four hours of the day before yesterday; life is short and I must
> work to eat (this is indeed my work, but I also have to write other
> papers instead of continuously defending some ideas I've already
> published). I'll reply once again to the endless critiques by Tavi and
> then I'll have completed what I can state.
>