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

--- 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>

But in that case, the entity "Proto-Celtic" would be as illusory as Neogrammarians' "PIE" (not to be confused with the real *paleo-IE*, improperly called "PIE"). However, I disagree with your "continuity" model, because I think Ireland was colonized by Celtic-speaking people from the Continent (and possibly more than once).

> Nothing to do with Alinei's model. The problem doesn't exist
>

Yes, it has, because yours is a "continuity" model.

> Be careful: I've written *kwö-, with Schwa secundum
>
> > Using non-std notations can led to *confusion*. Anyway, your
> > reconstruction looks like an ad-hoc one.
>
> What's the zero-grade of *kWes-?
>

Which is *kWes-? I mean the actual data.

> 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)
>

I don't know how something like *kWh2s- could possibly be a zero-grade "variant" of *kWes-, but perhaps it's because I'm illiterate on "PIE" algebra (i.e. symbol manipulation).