2012/5/8 dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>
>
>
> I am not suggesting Ligurian loanwords in Irish, but there is generally more than one way to skin a hapax. At any rate, there is no reason to give up on a theory which simplifies the interpretation of place-names and regional words in Greater Liguria.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Your theory is a quite classical one. I used to adhere to it. It's
far from complex: before the Celts, there were IE Ligurians. Main
differences between Celtic and Ligurian are this latter's treatment of
PIE */gwh/ as /b/ and of syllabic */r/ before stops as /ar/. Ligurian
was spoke until 5th c. BC(E).
My theory is: before 5th c. BC(E) Celtic invaders there were
already Celts, not only from 13th c. BC(E), but since PIE times. There
are no differences between both varieties of Celtic.
Which one is simplier?
>
>
> > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> >
> > 5 km SW of Barzago, whose name You analyse as Ligurian stem +
> > Gaulish suffix, there's Briosco < *Brig-usko-, precisely with *Brig-;
> > down there, the Celts would have coined a hybrid place-name with
> > Celtic root and Ligurian suffix or Celticized its root and retained
> > its suffix, just the opposite of *Barti-a:kon. Do You really maintain
> > that?
> [DGK:]
> Place-name suffixes can certainly be borrowed from substrate. In the Danelaw, Danish <-by> 'village' is found with English stems, e.g. Willoughby. Thus there can be no a-priori objection to a Gaulish stem taking a Ligurian suffix where Ligurian was spoken.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I've never objected to this. I've just observed that You think
Barzago has Ligurian root with Celtic suffix substituted to Ligurian
suffix and nearby Briosco has Celtic root with Ligurian suffix and
I've asked if You think that *brig- has been substituted instead of
e.g. *barg-. I've not yet understood whether You think *brig-usko- is
a Celtic brand new name (although with a loan suffix) or a partial
remake of a preceding *barg-usko-. That's all.
For my part, as You now, I analyze both formations as regular PIE
coinages and regular evolutions through Celtic - and only Celtic -
diachronic phonology. Everybody can see that both hypotheses are
perfectly possible.
>
> [DGK:]
> Earlier I overlooked the possibility of *brig- arising from Gaulish or Ligurian *wrig-. Valtelline <briánz> 'wormwood' points to a protoform *brigantios, disagreeing with Gallo-Latin <bricumus> 'id.' but agreeing with <brigantes> 'parasitic worms of the eyelids' (both from Marcellus of Bordeaux, ca. 400 CE), Welsh <gwraint> 'worms in the skin', Irish <frigh(id)> 'worms in meat', and Breton <grec'h> 'worm'. Worms wriggle, so <brigantes> could continue an obsolete (in Celtic) participial formation, with zero-grade present (like the Sanskrit 6th pres. class) from the root *wreig(^)H- reflected in Germanic *wri:g- (Old English <wri:gian> 'to turn aside, twist', Middle Low German <wriggeln> 'to wriggle'). But <bricumus> appears to reflect instead the zero-grade of *wreik(^)-, whose /o/-grade appears in Gaul. (and Lig.?) *wroikos 'heather' (cf. Old Ir. <froech>, We. <grûg>), whence Gallo-Latin <bru:cus> (glossed once, and reflected in Romance from Catalan to Milanese). I do not know whether *wrikomos 'wormwood' (against *wrigantios) was endemic to SW Gaul; if so, Valt. <briánz> could be Gaulish as well as Ligurian. For 'heather' (also 'broom-plant' and 'Alpine rose'), Venetian <brika>, Fassatalish <breg>, and Piemontese <brek> point to an Illyrian *wraikos, but to the south Sicel(?) *wroikos appears as Calabrian <bruco>, <bruca> and Sicilian <bruca>, <vruca>, <viruca> 'Tamarix gallica'.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Do You prefer to analyze *Brig-usko- as Celtic *brig- 'hill' +
Ligurian suffix or as Celtic/Ligurian *brig- 'worm' + Ligurian suffix?
(Note that *Brik-usko- with *brik- 'heather' would yield †Brigosco,
not Briosco.)
Here too I used to believe to a dialectal Gaulish treatment of
*wr- as *br-, but now I've more than one doubt about it; anyway this
doesn't affect our principal topic of discussion.
>
>
>
> > > [DGK:]But your methodology provides no means of distinguishing
> > > Celtic from non-Celtic,
> >
> > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> > As everybody knows, none of us is the Voice of Truth. Our task is
> > to apply a methodology.
> > The methodology I apply is: I chose an area where the presence of a
> > given language is assured (in this case, by inscriptions), I apply
> > independently verified sound-laws and see what comes out.
> > Distinguishing Celtic from non-Celtic is a procedure that can be
> > started only *after* that one has completed both the application of
> > the Celtic analysis and the application of every non-Celtic analysis.
> [DGK:]
> How silly. If a few place-names suggest that Celtic analysis is inadequate (and they do), there is no point in mechanically constructing a huge corpus of "regelrecht" Celtic etymologies, like a Neogrammarian in the wrong century.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I've no doubts that You might wish "a few place-names suggest that
Celtic analysis is inadequate", but:
1) even after having read again Your valuable messages, I can't
find a single instance of "place-names suggestins that Celtic analysis
is inadequate"; all You've written is, much less strongly, that
non-Celtic etymologies are possible for place-names I've analysed as
Celtic. You've never demonstrated that my etymologies are wrong (not
even in the case of Primaluna, see below; neither in the case of
Barga, about which I'm still waiting for a reply; PdBSt's etymology
for Ingauni can sound punk rock to Your 1957 ears, but this can in no
way be a critique) and of course the mere existence of alternative
etymologies can't rule out per se the correctness of a Celtic
proposal, one has to show that such Celtic etymologies are
intrinsically wrong;
2) Your following sentence "and they do" is therefore totally
oniric, a wishful thinking on Your part, but with no counterpart in
the real world, at least as it has been till now reported in this
discussion;
3) You assign a very heavy task to Your arguments if You think
that - as You say - "a few place-names" can suggest Celtic etymologies
are inadequate *in general* (and, if You - as I wish You - don't think
so, Your argument completely falls down, because a few
counterarguments can at best falsify Celtic etymologies *just for
those "few place-names"*, so a few falsified vs. "a huge corpus" means
the victory of the huge corpus).
4) a Neogrammarian etymology is either wrong or correct. If it's
wrong, please demonstrate it; if it's correct, its being Neogrammarian
or the like doesn't matter at all. Neogrammaticality is no criterion
for measuring the correctness of etymologies.
>
>
> > Three km North of Barzio (DGK: the pure Ligurian form without
> > -a:ko-?) there's Primaluna, usually understood as Latin pri:ma lu:na
> > 'first moon'; I rather compare Welsh 1 pryf, Ir. crum(h) 'worm, larve,
> > maggot, fly, insect, small animal of the forest, reptile, snake,
> > dragon etc.', and Ir. (con-)lón, (con-)lúan 'moor', Bret. louan
> > 'copse': PIE *kwrimo h2lounah2 > *kwrimo:louna: > PC *kwrima:louna: >
> > Gaulish *prima:louna: > Latin *Prima:louna > *Prima:lu:na, with
> > laryngeal lengthening in composition, Celtic */o:/ > /a:/ and p-Celtic
> > */kw/ > /p/.
> > There's also some instance of Latin vs. Germanic vs. Celtic
> > etymology, but now I have absolutely no more time
>
> Gaulish determinative compounds took the accent on the last syllable of the first element, as shown by certain tribal names which did not shift their accent to conform to the Latin penultimate law: Eburóvi:ces > Évreux, Durócasses > Dreux, Catúri:ges > Chorges, etc. (cf. Dottin, Lang. Gaul. 104).
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Perfectly true (more precisely: the last syllable of the
penultimate element), but not exhaustive. That Gaulish accent has
survived Romanization even when contrary to Latin rules is
exceptional; maybe the Bagaudae had a role in that, maybe others, but
its exceptionality is an undeniable fact (see below).
>
>
>
> Your hypothetical Gaulish compound *Prima:louna: should thus have had the accent on the antepenult, leading to weakening of the penult, and ultimately to loss of the ultima, in your part of the Romance world. Compare <Albíggaunon> (Strabo), Medieval Latin <in Albingano> (9th cent.), modern <Albénga> (dial. pron. [arbé.Nga] acc. to Petracco Sicardi).
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You should then say that Berry, Lyon, Laon, Yverdon, Carpentras,
Milan and so on "should have had the accent on the antepenult". Are
they therefore non-Celtic?
>
> [DGK:] Moreover, lowering of pretonic preconsonantal short */i/ occurs in modern <Bedonia> (acc. sg. <Bituniam>, acc. pl. <Bitunias>, Sent. Minuc.), modern <Bresello> against <Brixellum>, and the like.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Confusion. Lowering of short /i/ is regular (it's an Italo-Western
Romance phenomenon, unless You adhere to Patrizia de Bernardo
Stempel's theory of Gaulish pretonic lowering); in pretonic and
post-tonic position /e/ > /i/ takes place as well (reexpositam >
risposta, resurrectionem > risurrezione, altera: mente > altrimenti).
>
> Therefore, I would expect your Gaul. cpd. *Primá:louna: to yield early medieval *Primálona, modern *Premálo or *Premála (perhaps metathesized to *Perm-), but certainly not <Primaluna>.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
A bit too confident. Final -a never drops. Albingaunum > Albenga
(Mediaeval Albéngano) has post-post-tonic drop of -no only in Liguria
(in Lombardy, post-tonic -ano yields -en). So:
You *can't* expect that, You *could* expect *Premàluna, You
*should* also expect Primalùna and therefore "certainly not
<Primaluna>" is certainly wrong.
>
>
> [DGK:] Nevertheless I think the second half of your etymology can be salvaged. I have never believed the folk-explanation that the coastal town <Lu:na> was named after its alleged crescent-shaped harbor. I would rather posit a Ligurian term *louna: cognate with Breton <louan> 'copse'. This would have yielded an appellative *lu:na 'copse' vel sim. in the local Latin, continuing into the medieval vernacular. *Prima Luna would then simply mean 'Prime Copse' (for cutting wood), 'Beautiful Copse' or the like (cf. Old French <prin>, <prime> 'first-rate, beautiful, delicate' from Lat. <pri:mus>).
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
It's another possibility.
>
> [DGK:] There is, of course, a world of difference between this straightforward medieval etymology and your highly contrived Gaulish compound, which you seem willing to project all the way back to PIE.
> So, while I reject both the "pure" Latin/Romance etymology and your "pure" Celtic etymology, I do not reject your results as "pure" baloney. I find some of them usable (and thanks for Barzio).
>
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
A world of difference of course is there, but this doesn't imply
that one is better and the other one is worse. They are simply
different.
Anyway, if that mediaeval etymology is straightforward (You say
that), then also my PIE compound in its Gaulish phonological result
is. If my compound is contrived, the mediaeval etymology also is.
Please make a choice and be equal.
Of course You absolutely want to show I'm wrong and my thesis too.
Since You can't give a measurement, You simply state; this remain a
statement.
>
>
>
> > Between Barzio and Primaluna there's Pasturo, cf. Oir. 1 cas
> > 'curly, intricate', Middle Ir. 2 úr 'green': PIE *kwösto-puh2ro- >
> > *kwösto-pu:ro- > PC *kwasto-[p]u:ro- > Gaulish *pastou:ro- > Latin
> > *Pastouru- > *Pastu:ru-.
> > Do You have objections?
> [DGK:]
> Are you beginning to catch a glimmer of the trouble with your
> methodology?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
No (since Your only pertinent critique, the one to Primaluna, is
based partially on a counterfactual dialectological assumption and
above all on a pseudosyllogism "A ≠ B; A is true; ergo B is false",
whose weakness is that "≠" doesn't mean "complementary opposite"), I
begin to feel troublesome with this Most Honoured List. Everything I
write is systematycally attacked, but not with objective measurements.
I summarize our discussion:
DGK: "Ligurian differs from Celtic in four phenomena"
Bh.: "two of them are mere innovation vs. conservation and the
other two are based on three etymologies of place-names stems
(*bormo-, debeli-, *barga-), for which there are regular Celtic
alternatives"
DGK: "read Kretschmer"
Bh.: "already read"
DGK: "Archaic Celtic is nonsense and Barga : *bhrg'h- straightforward"
Bh.: "Archaic = conservative IE like Orobian, in between there are
200 -ate-names directly from PIE to Celtic, therefore Orobian and
Ligurian cannot represent an Ie pre-Celtic layer, but only the same
PIE layer not completely participating to Celticity; Barga :
√*bherg'h- is straightforward, after that its precise ablaut grade is
matter of discussion"
DGK: "Celtic /ar/ < /o:r/ is uncertain because of the hapax status
of bairt; Celtic etymologies for -ate- don't explain Reate"
Bh.: "OIr. bairt : Barzago; Reate has another origin, like some
Celtic -ate-place-names themselves (formal identity of suffix doesn't
imply etymological identity)"
DGK: "Barzago need not to be Celtic apart its suffix; its
Celticity is an unwarranted assumption"
Bh.: "Other 200 place-names in the area (different from
-ate-place-names) have Celtic comparanda"
DGK: "they can be lookalikes"
Bh.: "I've detailed reconstructions for each one (e.g. Primaluna,
Pasturo); why should Barzio and Barzago be Ligurian (with the addition
of Celtic *-a:ko-") while Briosco has Celtic *brig-?
DGK: "Primaluna is half-Latin; were it Celtic it should be
†*Premàlo, therefore its Celtic reconstruction is wrong; Pasturo is
probably Latin"
Bh.: "Not †*Premàlo but Pre/imàlùna, therefore a PIE > Celtic
reconstruction is correct; an obvious Latin etymology for Pasturo
can't exclude an equally motivated Celtic one".
How long shall we go on? You'll never be persuaded and, if these
are Your best arguments, neither I.
If anyone had exposed a theory like my one, implying a
localization for PIE according to independently founded sound-laws, I
would have thought "Very interesting! Tell us more; I'm very
curious"... The exact opposite has happened. Still worse, instead of a
desirable discussion I find only logical fallacies (above all the idea
that if there's an explication, then no other one is possible, while
the correct consequence is just that we have to choose among many
possibilities), and although I show such fallacies, they nevertheless
continuously pop up.
I draw the sad conclusion that a logical discussion is not
possible. Remember that I've already changed my mind (for decades I've
been not only studying but indeed teaching precisely those theories
You support), so it's not excess of love for my own theories, it's
lack of persuasiveness on Your side. Neither it's matter of received
vs. new theories, because You are against received hypotheses (e.g.
the etymology áth < *h1yah2tus) when they can contribute against Your
constructions. Note, finally, that while I never attack Your
constructions (only Your negationism: Ligurian isn't Celtic, Celtic
isn't indigenous in Cisalpine, *barga isn't from lengthened grade) - I
simply observe they are a possibility, not the only one - You always
pretend that what I say is untenable (*louna: is no concession,
because in Your interpretation the essential thing - a PIE date for
Primaluna - gets completely lost) and that my proposals are wrong
(which is, on the contrary, the only untenable idea)
>
> [DGK:] You preconclude that a place-name where Celts once lived must have a Celtic etymology, so you thumb through your dictionaries and invent one:
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
We patently don't understand each other or at least don't
understand what I write (maybe because my horrible English? I
hope...).
Such an argument is typical of Italian nationalist (and
present-day) philologists: if a place-name where Latin was spoken and
a Romance language has evolved from it can have a Latin-Romance
etymology, this must be the right one.
Instead of this non sequitur I propose: let's see how many
etymologies are possible, beginning from those according to the three
languages that are historically attested in situ. After that, let's
try to establish a hierarchy of probability; all hypotheses have to be
correctly formulated, just one can be probably right (let alone the
case of folk-etymology or the like).
It's also nice how You represent Your and my method: You
"simplify", I "invent".
If You mean that a Celtic compound *cassuir uel sim. is never
attested, You're right. Even in the case of Caslino : Caislin, the
compound *is* attested, but the form *Kastili:nos isn't; so You are
right again. In this case the only possible Celtic etymologies could
be historically attested Continental Celtic words.
With such a criterion, every Ligurian etymology would be a
fortiori "invented". You haven't *personally* invented Your Ligurian
etymologies simply because other people had already done the work
before You.
>
> [DGK:] <Pasturo>, you insist, means 'Intricate Green' (an excellent site for a challenging golf course). A "pure" Latino-Romanist could equally well argue that Latin-speakers once lived there, and preconclude that <Pasturo> has an obvious Latin etymology, 'Fattened Aurochs' (the site of an archaic Prodigal Son reception, perhaps).
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You have conflated two questions. One question is: "what's the best
Latin etymology for X?". The answer is - as You have written - Latin
pa:stu:ra 'pasture'. You choose here another Latin etymology,
evidenlty a much less probable one, and equate it ("could equally well
argue") to my Celtic etymology. If You write "equally well" = "equally
wrong" ("well" has no absolute quantification, so the amount of good
is complementary to the amount of bad and therefore "equally" means
both "well" and "wrong"), You are stating that, just as Latin would
have a better etymology ('Pastures') instead of "Fattened Aurochs", so
Celtic as well would have a better etymology than my one.
In the case of Celtic, this question would be: "what's the best
Celtic etymology for X?"; do You think there's a better Celtic
etymology? Please write it.
Having established the best Celtic etymology, we ask: "what's the
best Ligurian etymology?", and so on.
Having done that, we ask: "what's the best Pre-Roman etymology?"
Then the same for Germanic and all possible superstrata.
At last, we can ask: "what's the best etymology for X? The best
Latin one or the best Germanic one or the best Pre-Roman one?" (Note
that above Pasturo there's both plenty of pasture and plenty of green)
> [DGK:]
> If we are to get serious about this place-name,
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
"We" can mean either "You and other people" (exclusive "we") or
"You and me" (inclusive "we"). I think I've always been serious; You
in any case admit to have been joking in proposing "Fattened Aurochs",
but it remains wisely undetermined whether You were joking just in
writing that "Fattened Aurochs" is worth discussing or also in taking
into consideration "Intricate Green". From what follows, I get the
impression that You consider ridiculous both "Fattened Aurochs" and
"Intricate Green": is that right?
> [DGK:]
> I must ask you for some information, since you are geographically much closer to the action than I am:
>
> 1. What is the local pronunciation of <Pasturo>, including the accent? (You can use Petracco Sicardi's notation or some convenient adaptation.) Are there significantly different variants in other villages?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
IPA [pas'ty:r] (syllable boundary between /s/ and /t/)
> [DGK:]
> 2. What are the earliest written attestations of the name?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
1073 in loco Pasturio
>
> [DGK:] How do these change through the centuries?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
In no way; Latin always Pasturium
> [DGK:]
> 3. Might the name have undergone folk-etymological influence?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Yes, as every name resembling Latin-Romance lexical items
>
> [DGK:] Are there phonetically close words in the vernacular, the standard administrative language, or learned language, such as reflexes of LL <pa:stu:ra> 'pasture', <pa:sto:ria> 'shepherd's hobble', etc.?
>
> DGK
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Of course: [pas'ty:r] 'pastures' < pa:stu:rae / pa:stu:ra:s,
[pas'tu:r] 'shepherd' < pa:sto:re(m)
I don't understand Your strategy.
If You want Latin eymologies, I can always give You a lot, maybe
even better ones (= phonologically more regular) than Italian
Nationalists'.
If You believe in Kretschmer's theory, I can easily give You a
Ligurian etymology for every place-names we take into consideration,
both because I'm very familiar with that theory (having myself been a
supporter of it) and because every /a:r/ can be 'translated' from PIE
*/o:r/ to PIE syllabic /r/.
Our deepest point of disagreement isn't what You positively think
- I almost always agree with it - but what You deny, which is
practically all that doesn't coincide with Your construction. You
don't admit a grey zone between sure and false - a grey zone of
competing possibilities. You see that it's fundamentally impossible to
discuss with You. What one thinks can only 'happen' to happily and
luckily coincide with what You think, otherwise it will be doomed to
falseness and therefore rejection. This is why we are wasting our time