From: dgkilday57
Message: 69589
Date: 2012-05-12
>Yes, you suggested a set.-root, then fumbled the ball by failing to provide evidence from outside Celtic. I did provide it. You are now free to argue that Barzio and Barziago can be Celtic in origin from the same set.-root, but OIr <bairt> no longer provides compelling evidence for a Celtic /o:/-grade in the Barg- place-names. You can append as many laryngeals as you like to *bHr.g^H- and still get Celt. *brig-.
> 2012/5/10, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> Enough time already. Perhaps this represents *bHr.h1-teh2- formed from
> the set.-root observed in Grk. <pheretron>, Skt. <bharitram>, Lat.
> <feretrum> 'bier, litter, stretcher'. The force of *-h1 as a
> root-extension is not immediately obvious. Possibly it signifies 'to
> completion, to the end'. A born child has been carried to the end of
> child-bearing (i.e. birth), and a dead person is carried on the bier
> to his final resting-place. Thus *bHer- 'to carry', *bHerh1- 'to carry
> to the end'. Cf. *kel- 'to strike, hew', *kelh1- 'to strike
> (decisively)'.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> see my message of 2012/5/2 (21:36 Swiss time) : the only alternative
> to appertinentive Vrddhi *bho:r-ti-s would from seá¹ variant *bherH-
> with zero-grade and, pace Jens, derivative -h2 (from feminine)
> *bhrH-th2-i-s (> Celtic *barti-s like *bardo-s < *gwrH-dhh1-o-s with
> 'Schrijver's Law')
> I'd already published that
> <pruuia> /bruwya:/ :Unnecessary complexity, since *bHreh1wo- suffices to explain the attested Celtic forms, and Gmc. *-gg- requires *-h{x}w- anyway (cf. Lehmann).
> > Gaulish bri:ua: 'bridge' insists on an onomasiologic difference in
> > Celtic itself (bri:ua: vs. drochet).
>
> DGK:
> The Lepontic form is <pruiam> and I can see no principled way of
> getting it out of *bHreh1wo- 'bridge'.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> You probably don't have seen my analysis of bri:ua: < *bhre:u(H)ah2
> (2012/5/9, 13:24 Swiss time):
> "Gaulish *Bri:wotti: (bri:ua: 'bridge' = Romance ponte) < Celtic
> *Bri:wottoi <- *Bri:wottu:s < Late IE *Bhre:wotnó:s < PIE
> *Bhre:u(H)o-tnó-h1es < *Bhre:u(H)o-tnH-ó-h1es 'extensions of Bridge (=
> Ponte)' with *Common* PIE 'neognós' laryngeal deleting"
> DGK:D'oh! Yes, this should be /o/-grade *gWroh2u-jeh2- yielding Old Lepontic *bro:wja:- > Lep. /bru:ja:-/ <pruia-> by the same soundlaw which gives Lep. <tetu> /dedu:/ 'has given' < *dedo:w < *de-deh3-w = Skt. <dada:u>.
> I suggest instead the acc. sg. of *gWrh2u-jeh2- 'heavy stone',
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Why *laryngeal deletion in *gWrh2u-jeh2-? Shouldn't it yield â *baruja:
> or â *bra:wja: according to syllabification?
> DGK: referring to the inscribed heavy stone itself. Before Whatmough,Tavi has given a fuller reading of the Vergiate text than I could extract from Whatmough. I believe the text can indeed be read as I suggested, and I intend to show this in response to Tavi's post.
> 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 aA semasiological difference between Gaulish and Lepontic usages of the same word (assuming I agreed to that) would provide no evidence whatever in favor of separating Lepontic from Celtic. I would merely be handing you a straw man which you could knock down by citing well-known semasiological differences in words among Romance and Germanic languages.
> reduplicated root-perfect *de-deh3-w (Skt. <dada:u> 'has given').
> Narbonese Gaulish has <dede> which can hardly be the exact
> morphological equivalent.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> OK, the connection <pruia>* : bri:ua: has alternative
> counteranalyses, but my argument was "<pruuia> /bruwya:/ : Gaulish
> bri:ua: 'bridge' insists on an onomasiologic difference in Celtic
> itself (bri:ua: vs. drochet)". I thought You would have used this
> argument against the hypothesis of the Celticity of Lepontic. A
> connection between <pruia> and bri:ua: would have been (so it was at
> least since Pisani) an argument in favour of a lexical diversity
> between Lepontic and Gaulish and I was trying to explain it, but if
> You indeed don't believe in a connection between <pruia> and bri:ua:
> then a possible argument for You doesn't even start and this problem
> doesn't exist.
> >> 2012/5/9, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:In your view, then, EVERYBODY was Celtic. This is only supposed to happen on St. Patrick's Day.
> >> >
> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>
> >> Could You please be so patient to enumerate the ad-hoc assumptions
> >> in my theory? Yours are two, aren't they? (Being ad-hoc isn't wrong;
> >> it simply means "not independently founded"))
>
> > DGK:
> > Celts developing in place defy archaeology. Celtic place-names with
> > conserved inherited /p/ (as you claim for Porcobera) defy the concept of
> > Celtic.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Archaeology shows a succession of cultures (Lagozza,
> Canegrate-Golasecca and so on); maybe each culture is a different
> population (but not genetically different), maybe not. Let's admit
> that each culture corresponds to a different population; the last one
> is Celtic. Does this imply that the former weren't Celts? Obviously it
> doesn't imply anything. Celts can supersede on other Celts. A
> difference in culture cannot necessarily imply difference of language
> family (otherwise the Suebians couldn't have attacked the Usipetes and
> Tencteri...)
> As I have already twice made clear, IE place-names with conserved*Barg- represents a non-Celtic innovation. All you do is dismiss clear evidence of non-Celtic innovations.
> inherited /p/ don't necessarily represent a pre-Celtic layer until
> they don't show any non-Celtic innovation. You can call them
> "Porcoberians" or what You like; I had used Giulia Petracco Sicardi
> label "Celtic", but they are in fact Late IE not fully celticized.
> Have I been sufficiently clear?
> Therefore these aren't assumptions. I don't *assume* anything onIn other words, you peremptorily dismiss the evidence.
> these grounds. Archaeology is indifferent and therefore cannot prove
> nor disprove my thesis nor Your one; Late IE names cannot prove nor
> disprove my thesis nor Your one. So, I haven't made any assumption of
> such kind and therefore these aren't ad hoc assumptions (they aren't
> assumptions at all, there's no assumption: absence of population
> replacement and absence of a pre-Celtic layer can only be
> *consequences* of independent etymolgies).
>
> >> Place-names that show only a part (even just the Late IE section)
> >> of Celtic sound laws are pre-Celtic only in the sense they are
> >> conservative. They don't prove the existence of any substrate; at most
> >> they can suggest it, but they can as well (of course don't necessarily
> >> need to) represent only marginal areas.
> >> Place-names that show non-Celtic innovations but no Celtic
> >> innovations are post-Celtic.
> >> Place-names that show non-Celtic innovations and only a part of
> >> Celtic innovations can (= cannot avoid the suspicion to be) later
> >> incomers.
> >> Only place-names that show non-Celtic innovations and all local
> >> Celtic innovations suffice to establish a pre-Celtic substrate.
>
> > DGK:
> > But you regard all innovations as taking place in situ. Your doctrine
> > cannot distinguish Celtic from non-Celtic at any time-depth.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Doch (= "no" or "yes"?), it can. I there were non-Celtic inovations,
> they would be recognized as such. E.g., a place-name â Medioplo:nom (or
> â Mediopla:nom, depending on it final member's etymology) could be
> immediately recognized as Venetic or Latin, â Mefioplu:no resp.
> â Mefiopla:no as Italic, â Midiaflo:na- as Germanic and so on.
>
> The proof is that, of course, although a regular Celtic etymology
> would be possible (for â Medioplo:nom *medio- + *plo- + *(f)ono-, where
> *plo- < PIE *kwl(H)-o-, compounded form of *kwlH-ah2 > pala:, with
> neognós laryngeal deletion, and *(f)ono- < *pono- 'water'), the risk
> of a casual coincidence with real Celtic lexical items (*medio-, pala
> and *ono-) would be nevertheless higher in such a three disyllables
> analysis than in a straightforward comparison between the entire
> tetrasyllable compound *Mediola:non and its potential Venetic match.
> Therefore, the etymology of â Medioplo:nom as the Venetic outcome of
> PIE *Medhyo-plh1no-m (> Celtic *Mediola:non) is statistically more
> probable than the analysis of â Medioplo:nom as the Celtic output of
> PIE *Medhyo-kwlHo-pono-.
>
> Bormo- < PIE *gwhor-mo- and Barga < PIE *bhrg'h-ah2 don't have the
> same statistical superiority on *bhor-mo- and *bho:rg'h-ah2 because 1)
> the length of the comparanda isn't higher for non-Celtic (two
> syllables) than for Celtic reconstructions (two syllables), and 2) the
> non-Celtic diachronic phonology isn't independently established.
> Anyway, even if it were demonstrated that non-Celtic innovations areFor our purposes, lengthened grade does exist. I am not a revisionist regarding that.
> to be preferred in the etymology of some place-names, there would be
> the question of the relative chronological priority between Celtic and
> non-Celtic layer. The layer which shows more features of both
> diachronic phonologies is the older one. If the two layers show the
> same amount of transformations through both diachronic phonologies,
> they're equally old (this almost never happens). If each layer doesn't
> exhibit any trace of transformations according to the other one's
> phonology, we can't decide whether the two languages has been spoken
> separately or one of the two has completely erased the other one in a
> prt of the region under examination.
>
> >
> >> > DGK:
> >> > Furthermore there should be abundant parallel /o:/-grade formations NOT
> >> > involving Osthoff's shortening from roots without resonants in this
> >> > position, in Celtic and elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> >> Every vrddhi formation, isn't it?
>
> > DGK:
> > Every one has /o:/-grade?
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> No, some have /e:/-grade (cf. my *bhre:u(a)ah2 > Gaulish bri:ua:)
> and some have /o:/-grade, as every handbook of IE studies tells
> (unless You adhere to Eric Pratt Hamp's idea that lengthened grade
> never existed)
> > DGK:Your English is quite good. However, following your syllogisms is like tracking a caffeinated rabbit through a corn maze.
> > Then I do not understand your objection to Rea:te as a counter-example. If
> > all your place-names end in -a:te, that is ABSOLUTELY no big deal.
> >
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> My English must be really unintelligible if You (this is patent)
> don't have understood even the elementary fact that -ate-place-names
> have accented long /a:/. As a consequence, You have completely missed
> my argument, which is based on the analysis of (long!) /a:/ as the
> conflation of *-a:a:- < *a:-ja:- < Late IE *-o:ya:- < PIE *-o-h1yah2-.
> I redirect You to my message of 2012/5/1 (15:29 Swiss time); maybe as
> You have seen -ate You have been so caught by Your discovery (You have
> repeated six time "Reate") - although without any etymology - that You
> have sauté du même au même.