Re: Ligurian

2012/5/12, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> Yes, you suggested a set.-root, then fumbled the ball by failing to provide
> evidence from outside Celtic. I did provide it.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
My God. I didn't provide it because it's well known at least since
Hamp 1982, to whom I've made refernce in my publication. If You have
indipendently discovered it again between my message (2012/5/12,
21:36) and now (or even earlier), good for You. As for fumbling the
ball, I was already playing against myself in that I was, for the sake
of completeness, making clear that bairt doesn't have just one
explication, but two. I recognize without problems when an explication
insn't the only one. Remember that I was answering a question about
the *possible* evidence. Should I have not mentioned it at all? Or has
it been better to mention it, provided that I added a
counterexplanation?

DGK:

> 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-.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
We are still back at my message of 2012/5/12, 21:36. What about "OIr.
alt -o-, n. 'joint, articulation, state' : Gk. péplos, laryngealless
(does it exist?) 3. √*pel- (Pokorny 802-803, Mallory - Adams 1997:
63)? Matasović's *pol-to- (121) implies a loan from Germanic, but
*po:l-to-m would be regular."
Anders <ollga_loudec@...> wrote (2012/5/12, 23:50) "Sure,
this is a possible etymology. The meaning of *pel- seems to be 'to
fold', from which 'joint, articulation' is a plausible development.
But the etymology is hardly inevitable." Do You want still more? Then
I ask You to provide, please, evidence for the development */o:rC/ >
/orC/. I repeat that every instance of such development can per
definitionem be analysed as PIE normal short */orC/, so a clear
counterexample is virtually impossible.

>
>> <pruuia> /bruwya:/ :
>> > 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:
> Unnecessary complexity, since *bHreh1wo- suffices to explain the attested
> Celtic forms, and Gmc. *-gg- requires *-h{x}w- anyway (cf. Lehmann).
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Where's the problem? Germanic *bruwwjõn < PIE
*bhruH-w(i)yah2-[h1/3]o:n, root √*bhreuH- and normal Hoffmann
suffixation to *bhruH-w(i)yah2 > Lepontic /bru:wija:/ (for the sake of
completeness: Germanic *bruwwjõn can also continue PIE
*bhru-k-(i)yáh2-[h1/3]o:n).
Your favourite reconstruction with root *bhreh1(w)- simply requires
*bhro(:)Hwah2 (of course, not zero-grade *bhrh1w-iyah2-[h1/3]o:n- >
Gmc. †*burggwjõ...; this is written for the sake of completeness), but
You see that my sequence too is perfectly in accordance with Germanic
(why "complexity"? Is √*bhreuH- more complex than √*bhreHw-?)

>> DGK:
>> I suggest instead the acc. sg. of *gWrh2u-jeh2- 'heavy stone',
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> Why *laryngeal deletion in *gWrh2u-jeh2-? Shouldn't it yield †*baruja:
>> or †*bra:wja: according to syllabification?
>
> 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>.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

Long /o:/ in final syllable yields long /u:/ in Celtic as well
(since you don't ascribe Lepontic to Celtic), while Your transfer of
the (modified) law (in that You assume that the whole diphthong is
monophthongized) to the inner of the word would be only Lepontic, but
ad hoc (this, I repeat, is not per se bad, but weaker than a treatment
that can have at least a parallel in Celtic) and above all at variance
with Ornavasso Latumarui with /-ma:ro-/ < PIE *moh1-ro-, whose /a:/ <
PIE */o:/ is typically Celtic

> DGK:
> I agree with +*baruja: as the likely outcome of zero-grade, since the best
> explanation I have of Lep. <pala> 'grave' is /bala:/ < *gWlh1-eh2 from
> *gWelh1- 'to swallow up, gulp down' (cf. Grk. <deletron>, <delear> 'fishing
> bait'). In an inhumating society, the ground swallows up the dead.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Good etymology. So, nothing to do with Lusitanian Trebopala?

> DGK: From
> the anit.-root *gWel- 'to open for swallowing, gape' I derive *gWl.-meh2
> 'gaping hole' whence Ligurian *balma: 'cave, grotto, overhanging cliff,
> etc.' You are free to derive this from Celtic with the set.-root,

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
There's no difference. Both anit.-*gwo:l-mah2 and set.-*gwo:lh1-mah2
(with Saussure's laryngeal deletion) would have the same outcome (set.
zero-grade *gwlh1-mah2 is in any case excluded, since it would yield
*bla:ma:). Indirect evidence for /o/ grade (although short /o/, but
anyway a good base for a vrddhi formation) is Dalmatian garma (<
*galma), with exactly the same meaning.
You see that I don't re-open the question of Ir. lem (*l.-mo-s or
*li-mo-s?), otherwise I could claim that even *gWl.-meh2 could be
Celtic (but, since it's most disputed, I don't affirm that).

> DGK: but the
> distribution of pre-Roman *balma: is Ligurian (centered on Genovese).

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You have just now written that onomasiological differences are
commonplace in historical languages. Grzega 2001 is full of Celtic
relics limited to single Alpine areas. Nothing strange that a lexical
item is limited to Liguria, just like other ones are limited to single
Gaulish tribes (Jud, "Mots d'origine gauloise?", Romania 1920, 1921,
1923, 1926)

> DGK: I
> regard pre-Roman *balwa: (in Upper German <Balfen>, <Palfen>, etc.) as the
> Gaulish borrowing from Lig. *balma:, not a separate formation. More later.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Since having rejected an idea of Yours is still taking an enormous
amount of time, I'll abstain from any comment. I limit myself to reply
to Your attacks on my positions

>> (...)
>> 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...)

> DGK:
> In your view, then, EVERYBODY was Celtic. This is only supposed to happen
> on St. Patrick's Day.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
How scientific a reply

> DGK:
>> As I have already twice made clear, IE place-names with conserved
>> 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?

> DGK:
> *Barg- represents a non-Celtic innovation. All you do is dismiss clear
> evidence of non-Celtic innovations.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Please. It's not my aim to convince You. We are publicly discussing
an a topic of common interest, but it should be clear that what is
being discussed cannot per definitionem constitute "clear evidence".
If You don't accept to discuss it, let's stop once for all a useless
waste of time. You'll in any case keep Your idea and I won't bother
You any more. You are satisfied with such "evidence", good luck

>(...) If there were non-Celtic inovations,
>> they would be recognized as such. E.g., a place-name †Medioplo:nom (or
>> †Mediopla:nom, depending on it final member's etymology) could be
>> immediately recognized as Venetic or Latin, †Mefioplu:no resp.
>> †Mefiopla:no as Italic, †Midiaflo:na- as Germanic and so on.
>>
>> The proof is that, of course, although a regular Celtic etymology
>> would be possible (for †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 †Medioplo:nom as the Venetic outcome of
>> PIE *Medhyo-plh1no-m (> Celtic *Mediola:non) is statistically more
>> probable than the analysis of †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.

> DGK:
> In other words, you peremptorily dismiss the evidence.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I cast doubts on alleged evidence. There's no independent evidence,
only three place-names stems that can equally well be analyzed as
Celtic.
Sure, You point out that my faith in Celtic /arC/ < PIE /o:rC/ has
only one piece of evidence (Ir. alt) in its favour, but at least it's
one and independent from the etymology in discussion; You don't seem
to have even that one (if I may observe)...
Once again: this doesn't mean it's wrong; it's perfeclty possible,
but my explanation is at least equally possible, so till now nobody
prevails. My argument relies on the much heavier probability that
-ate-place-names offer for an in-situ-development of Cisalpine Celtic
from PIE; I've also argued, during this discussion, for the higher
probability of the classical etymon *h1ah2tus for (residual) °-a:tus
in place-names; all this suggests that the undeniable instances of
preserved IE /p/ in Liguria and the Orobian Alps are conservative
phenomena and since, as we have to admit, possible non-Celtic
developments aren't irrefutable, the more economic solution is to all
IE presences in Cisalpine as just one layer.