Re: Ligurian

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

>
> 2012/5/3, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > But we already have Gaulish personal names on
> > Lepontic inscriptions and coins. Whatmough explained this easily in 1933,
> > and he referred to the inscc. as "Kelto-Liguric" (i.e. Ligurian with Celtic
> > superstrate). We have Latin names in Etruscan inscc., and that does not
> > make Etruscan an Italic language.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Etruscan inscc. have plenty of Etruscan lexical items, Lepontic
> inscc. unfortunately much less of Lepontic lexical items, but
> nevertheless please show me that the majority of Lepontic lexicon
> contrasts with Celtic lexicon.
> You'll find <pala> and <pruuia>. <pala> can have many etymologies,
> so it neither proves nor disproves anything; <pruuia> /bruwya:/ :
> Gaulish bri:ua: 'bridge' insists on an onomasiologic difference in
> Celtic itself (bri:ua: vs. drochet).

The Lepontic form is <pruiam> and I can see no principled way of getting it out of *bHreh1wo- 'bridge'. I suggest instead the acc. sg. of *gWrh2u-jeh2- 'heavy stone', referring to the inscribed heavy stone itself. Before Whatmough, scholars read the last word of the text as <palai>, which could be loc. sg. 'in the plot'. The legible part of the Vergiate text is then:

pelkui:pruiam:teu:karite:i[--------]ite:palai

Problems abound with taking <teu> as a postposition and <karite> as a passive verb. Instead <karite> could be understood as an instrumental or other adverbial word, along with <...ite>, with the subject <i...> largely effaced. I hypothesize <teu> as an active verb, an unreduplicated 3sg. root-perfect, Lep. /de:u/, corresponding to Skt. <dadha:u>, and containing *-w as an archaic root-perfect formant, PIE *dHeh1-w 'has placed'. In this view the Lat. /w/-perf. originated from root-perfs. with laryngeal-final roots, <(g)no:vi:>, <-ple:vi:>, etc. (cf. Skt. <jajn~a:u>, <papra:u>). The text is then to be partially read as follows:

'... (acting with) ... (and) ... has placed (this) heavy stone in the plot for Belgus.'

Possibly Lep. <tetu> (Prestino) can be similarly analyzed as a reduplicated root-perfect *de-deh3-w (Skt. <dada:u> 'has given'). Narbonese Gaulish has <dede> which can hardly be the exact morphological equivalent.

DGK