Re: Ligurian

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

>
> 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?

The one which explains /b/ and /arC/ from *gWH and *r.C without further ad-hoc assumptions, that is, Kretschmer's theory of Ligurian.

> >
> > > 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.

Yours requires additional assumptions.

> >
> > [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'.
>

Yesterday I overlooked Valtellinese <verca> 'heather' which also requires Illyrian vocalism, *wraika:, thus coming from pre-Ligurian substrate. To you, no doubt, an additional stratum is an unnecessary complication. To me, it is a necessary one.

> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>     Do You prefer to analyze *Brig-usko- as Celtic *brig- 'hill' +
> Ligurian suffix or as Celtic/Ligurian *brig- 'worm' + Ligurian suffix?

I cannot choose. Perhaps some toponomastic feature favors one over the other. We must recognize our limitations.

> (Note that *Brik-usko- with *brik- 'heather' would yield †Brigosco,
> not Briosco.)

Yes.

>     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;

By "correct" apparently all you mean is "regelrecht". I believe in soundlaws as much as anyone, but other criteria are in play here.

>     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).

This is not a demolition derby between dump trucks, with the victory going to the biggest load. A FEW place-names which cannot be plausibly explained as Celtic suffice to establish a pre-Celtic substrate.

>     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.

Again, "correct" to you is simply "regelrecht", with no regard for other criteria.

> >
> > > 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?

No, they are Celtic in origin, but their accent has been shifted to conform to Latin rules, which is more common than not. Most of the places called <Conda:te> are now <Conde'>, indicating shifting.

> > [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).

Your examples do not involve IMMEDIATE pretonic original /i/; mine do.

> >
> > 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.

All right, I will accept that the accent COULD have been shifted; moreover, folk-etymology COULD have operated at any time to produce Prim- from *Prem- (as though 'First Moon'), so I will admit that my critique was indeed "a bit too confident". Score one for you.

> > [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.

I do see your point here. The only way to resolve this is by looking at more place-names.

> Of course You absolutely want to show I'm wrong and my thesis too.

I have no personal grudge against you. I simply think that the theories of Kretschmer and Hubschmid are better suited to explaining toponymy than your "development in place" or whatever it is.

> 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"

Furthermore there should be abundant parallel /o:/-grade formations NOT involving Osthoff's shortening from roots without resonants in this position, in Celtic and elsewhere.

Tea:num against Tea:te indicates that neuter *-ti is parallel to *-nom, and Gaulish <litanos> 'broad' (*pr.th4-nos, Greek <platanos> 'broad tree, sycamore', Sanskrit <pr.thu-> 'wide') shows that Celtic appends *-no- to laryngeal-final stems. Therefore, no great shakes that place-names end in (short) -ate. No reason to assume development in place. No historic first in comparative linguistics.

> 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"

Many may in fact be Celtic in origin. My point is that SOME most likely are not.

> 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).

Such a procedure is obstructionistic.

>     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?

Not ridiculous, but rather implausible.

> > [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)

Thank you for this information.

> 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

I am sorry you feel that way.

DGK