Re: Ligurian

>

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

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

   Patrizia de Bernardo, married with Reinhard Stempel

 

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

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

   OK

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".

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

   thank you as usual for welcome information

 

>  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).
> Tavi:
This is a huge misrepresentation in diachronical terms.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: 

   I've tried to falsify it through my -ate-etymologies - till now the only possible PIE place-names I know with fixed location

> 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!

   The omission was just in order to avoid your reply. Since my effort has been frustrated, I reformulate for the sake of completness:

   "I think - for this area - that PIE has evolved in situ directly to Illyrian, Dalmatian, Veneto-Histro-Liburnian, Latin, Italic, Celtic, Vasco-Aquitanian and Iberian", but this is a dogmatic statement on my part because I'm not giving any justification (for Celtic I refer to previous messages, for Basque to Forni 2011, for some of the other languages to some papers of mine - some of them still forthcoming), so, apart from Celtic, take it for a mere working hypothesis

> 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)

 

> Tavi: 

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

   Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

   You may know that its endonym is "Großindogermanische Hypothese" 

> Tavi:

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).

   Not so blind as to ignore the slightest detail by other people; indeed, my goal is - as already stated - an archi-model with all discutable (? Translating German "diskutabel") theories. My own theories tend to disappear in such an archi-model, unless they represent extreme sides of it (as for the postulated extension of PIE through time, or my postulated Urheimat from Atlantic to China, or my estemee of PIE lexicon - 11,000,000,000,000,000 items - and population - insgesamt 2,771,000,000 people in 40 millennia)