Re: Ir. cas(s) and IE models (was: Ligurian)

2012/5/11, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> In my model (as in yours, I suppose),
>> PIE had split into hundreds of palaeodialects;
>> some of them later
>> coalesced into Irish IE, which in turn came to be part of
> Proto-Celtic.

>> Tavi:
> Irish (actually Goidelic) must be diachronically younger than
> Proto-Celtic, as otherwise we'll have the same "anomaly" than Alinei's
> Romance being older than Latin.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I haven't written "Irish" or "Goidelic", I've written "Irish IE",
i.e. the PIE dialectal complex that was spoken in Ireland before the
consitution of the Celtic Sprachbund. Nothing to do with Alinei's
model. The problem doesn't exist

> Tavi:
>> > According to Schrijver (quited by De Vaan), after a labial consonant
>> > Proto-Italic /o/ was unrounded to /a/, but only in *open* syllables
>> > (e.g. *mori > mari), so *kWos-lo- would give regularly Latin co:lum,
> but
>> > not qua:lus, which must be either a loanword or have a different
>> > etymology (De Vaan chose the latter).

>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> Be careful: I've written *kwö-, with Schwa secundum

>> Tavi:
> Using non-std notations can led to *confusion*. Anyway, your
> reconstruction looks like an ad-hoc one.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
What's the zero-grade of *kWes-? If it's *kWös-, my reconstruction
isn't ad hoc, but rather necessary and indeed the only possible one;
if it isn't *kWös-, my reconstruction is wrong. In any case it isn't
ad hoc (which wouldn't be so bad, anyway)