From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69546
Date: 2012-05-08
> 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
>