Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> > 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'.
>

This is the usual interpretation (see for example http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/wiki/pruiam).

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

The transcription I'm aware of is pelkui : pruiam : teu : karite : iṣ́oÌ£s : kalite : palamÌ£

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

So this unknown person was a kind of Ligurian Obelix planting menhirs on the ground. LOL.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hT490FA7Db4/T2dMgupbsaI/AAAAAAAABvA/lru6XVEe9Fk/s1600/obelix.jpg