Re: Ligurian

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

>
> 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'.
>

I think we should differentiate between Ligurian Celtic à la Bernardo-Stempel (after Celtization) and a non-Celtic IE Ligurian language (before Celtization).

> 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)
>

This is DGK's "Illyro-Lusitanian" aka Coromines' "Soroptaptic" aka Villar's "Italoid".

> and that this family is the direct ancestor - not a mere substratum -
> of historical Romance languages.
>

That is, Alinei conflates the pre-Latin substrate in Romance with Romance itself, up to point of presenting the latter as a *constitutive* dialect of Latin! Interestingly, in his own version of the PCT Michael Goormachtigh renames Alinei's Italoid as "Occitan-Romance", but contrarily to his master, he dates it to the expansion of the Neolithic Cardial Culture, which is far more reasonable. In my own model, this would correspond to the ancestor of Basque and Iberian, roughly equivalent to DGK's "West Mediterranean".

>  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).
>

This is a huge misrepresentation in diachronical terms.

> I think - for this area (and without taking into consideration
> Basque and Iberian for this matter) -
>

Conveniently *ignored* for the sake of "completeness" of your model. Good gracious!

> 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)
>

I'd call your theory "the chewing-gum PIE", because you stretch it far from their conventional limits, both temporally (diachronically) and spatially (diatopically).

> If we'll be there, I foresee that in 2057 we'll be still amusingly
> discussing, unless new data will emerge.
>

We'd very lucky indeed to be alive by then. :-)

> 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.
>

I'm afraid most people is blind to the flaws of their own theories. But at least you're much more civilizated than the 3 B's (I leave to you to guess their names).