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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> > 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").
>
> (My model:) Proto-Indo-European spread across Eurasia. It split into
> hundreds of dialects, each one with its own lexical details. Some of
> these dialects developed common innovations, albeit preserving
> idiosyncratic lexical items. The dialects which developed Common
> Celtic innovations are the Common Celtic entity.
> (Facts:) Latin spread across European (and Northern African)
> countries. It split inton hundreds of dialects, each one with its own
> lexical details. Some of these dialects developed common innovations,
> albeit preserving idiosyncratic lexical items.
>

And most important, Romance dialects also incorporated *substrate loanwords* from the indigenous languages which were replaced by Latin.

> As for PIE, I identify laryngeal PIE with Palaeo-IE, you don't. We
> already knew that. In your model, laryngeal PIE (you call it
> 'Neogrammarian PIE') is an illusion, in my model it isn't.
>

I call it an "illusion" because it doesn't represent the "last common ancestor of all IE languages" but it's rather a tranversal section (although far from being synchronical) through the last stages of the IE family. Thus it's *absurd* to identify it with the real paleo-IE.

> You will be then a bit surprised to learn that Alinei, in a
> critical review (QSem 2007) of some papers of mine, used the very
> words you too have chosen.
> Anyway, the difference between Alinei's Continuity and my
> Groszindogermanische Hypothese is so great that I don't care of some
> common remote assumptions.
>

Anyway, what those "continuity" models, either yours or Alinei's,  have in common are:
1) assertion of "in situ" development of historical IE languages
2) negation of language replacement

> > Which is *kWes-? I mean the actual data.
>
> You haven't answered (as usual). I'll give you the answer: it's
> *kWös-, where <ö> is Schwa secundum, an epenthetic, at first
> non-phonemic vowel inserted by anaptyxis in zero-grade sequences (see
> Hermann Güntert, Indogermanische Ablautprobleme. Untersuchungen über
> Schwa secundum, einen zweiten indogermanischen Murmelvokal
> [Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft.
> Herausgegeben von Karl Brugmann und Ferdinand Sommer. 6], Straßburg,
> Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, 1916).
>

AFAIK, modern PIE reconstructions abolished the "schwa secundum" and replaced it by h2.

> If you don't operate with Schwa
> secundum, then your etymology for Gk. kístÄ" isn't coherent with that
> for cassis.
>

Are you telling me that /i/ in Germanic *xizd-o:n- and Greek kíste: comes from an anaptytic -h2- in the zero-grade variant?

Also as a outsider, I'm free to criticize those aspects of IE studies which I see as inadequate.