Re: Ligurian

2012/5/9, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- 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?
>> Tavi:
> 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.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I too know all this. My question still is: what's wrong with cass : qua:lus?
I infer that nothing is wrong, so we can have here again a case of
merging of etyma into an Irish word

>
>> 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 regular solutions are the exceptions, our discussion finishes
here (provided it was still going on).
As for victimism, I'm the effect and you are the cause. Weren't
you so unfair, I'd have no reason to complain. Therefore you are the
cause of your own annoyance. Anyway, I don't feel a victim, I only
perceive your hostility, but in fact every time you don't answer to my
questions you implicitly admit I'm right, so I feel quite gratified.
Of course, you always state I'm wrong, but you never go beyond pure
statements, without any justification, and moreover you repeat ad
nauseam the same pseudologism ("if there's a possible solution, no
other solution is possible"), therefore confirming I'm right

>
>> 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.
>> Tavi:
>> > Well, you've received two independent *negative* peer reviews. This
>> > should make you think there's somehting wrong with your theory.
>>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 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?
>> Tavi:
> I suppose you came here to get feedback, didn't you? Then you've got it.

I came here about ten years ago. For years I've been mostly
reading You All and scarcely anything more. A few months ago I dared
to reply with minor remarks; in this case I've just made clear that
there are regular (I beg your pardon for this obscene concept) Celtic
etymologies for Ligurian bormo- and Barga.
I didn't look for any feedback. Your feedback, for what it's worth
(to me, everything is valuable), is already well known; I'd be very
stupid if I spent so many hours just to read what I already know.
I ask You (All) especially etymologies (Your theories are also
welcome, but generally I'm sufficiently informed to know or foresee
them). If You (All) have time to detect specific bugs in my proposals,
it's very good as well (and forgive me if I dare to reply...). If you
simply repeat that Your theory is good and mine is bad, this can maybe
create a rather stereotyped Romantic Mediterranean atmosphere of
passions and rivalries, but adds no novelty to our subject.