Re: Ligurian

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

>> > 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

>> Tavi:
> I haven't studied the Latin word but I must insist there's no traces of
> a labiovelar in Celtic, with should give p- in P-Celtic.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
May I add that you never face my objection? You constantly apply a
pseudologism: if there's a possible etymology for X, every other
possible etymology of X must be wrong. You fail to make a constrastive
evaluation between these possibilities.
I've proposed (and indeed already published in 2009) that Irish cass
can represent the regular merger of both *kwös-to- (: *kwös-lo-s >
Lat. qua:lus) and *közdh-to- (: *kozdh-o- > Germanic *hazda-).
Therefore nothing against *közdh-to- (I've used this etymology already
in a publication in 2003), so your objection is no objection because
there's nothing to be objected.
If you are against a connection between cass and qua:lus (but you
admit that you haven't studied this Latin word yet), you can't argue
that cass is already fiancé with *hazda- (because you would be
otherwise assuming without any demonstration that PIE *kwös- has been
lost in Celtic, although its regular potential outcome - cass - is
there)

>> 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

>> Tavi:
> No, it doesn't. Ignoring other people's arguments doesn't make you
> right. Anyway, if you believe so it isn't my problem but yours.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
As usual, you make statements without argumentations. I begin to
have some doubts on your work if you persist in showing yourself so
apodictic, rejecting any contrastive measurement.

>> 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.
>
> Tavi:
> Which have been *refuted* by Douglas.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You'll concede that I may have already noticed that; or are you
saying that whenever DGK refutes an etymology, this latter is wrong?
In this case I should take note of this in regard to some etymologies
of yours.
Tavi and Douglas - The Two Peers. Sounds good