Re: Ligurian

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

>
> What's wrong with cass < *kwösto- (Stokes – Bezzenberger 1894:
> 57): Lat. qua:lus < *kwös-lo-s (alternative - or, better,
> complementary - etymology to *kwat-slo-s, de Vaan 2008: 504), see
> Pokorny 1959: 635, Schrijver 1991: 462, Mallory - Adams 1997: 52?
>

Matasovic^ links the Irish word to the Gaulish anthroponym Cassi- and the ethnonym -casses, which H. Birkan (quoted by Delamarre) thinks means 'having curly hair', a Celto-Germanic isogloss (Germanic *xazda- > Old Norse haddr 'long hair of woman'). However, for Cassi- Patrizia de Bernardo proposes the meaning 'tin', which Delamarre extends by methonymy to 'bronze'. Anyway, there're no traces of a labiovelar here.

> Ah, I notice that Ranko (2009, six years after my publication) has
> finally got back his role of Authority, when it's useful to criticize
> me (nothing similar in previous cases, when he was invoked by me...).
>

Broadly speaking, I think Ranko made a good work, although certainly can be improved.

> Anyway, once again the same error: you deny an otherwise regular
> solution just because there's another one, which better fits your
> theory (although in this case your theory is limited to your blind
> hatred against me)
>

I'm afraid what you call "regular solutions" are rather the exception than the norm in paleolinguistics. You're also accusing me of having an agenda and a "hatred" against you, something which is false. Your own victimism is quite annoying.

> 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.
>
> > Well, you've received two independent *negative* peer reviews. This
> > should make you think there's somehting wrong with your theory.
>
> How many negative peer reviews have you received?
> Will you ever be able to treat other people and yourself with one
> and the same criterion?
>

I suppose you came here to get feedback, didn't you? Then you've got it.