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

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

>
> (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.

>
> Sure, really very important. On the other hand, you have to admit
> that there must have been a first layer (with any substrate before it)
>

Sure, there can be many linguistic layers in a given place, although the
most ancient ones would only be detectable in toponymy or not detectable
at all. But the fact is Celtic doesn't represent the oldest layer but
one of the most recent ones, as there're older strata detectable.

> You assume that 4th Millennium BC(E) laryngeal IE cannot have the
> same reconstructed features of the last common ancestor of all IE
> languages.
>

Yes, because this "last common ancestor" was spoken many millenia
before, possibly in the Gravettian (Villar).

> I propose that its reconstructible phonemes are the same as
> long as we can detect.
>

Yeah, including Neogrammarians' "voiced aspirated", morpohology and so
on.

> This is by no way absurd and you can star this
> epithet as many times you desire, this won't change the state of

affairs

>

I could change "absurd" by *inconsistent*, but as you say, "this won't
change the state of affairs".

If you really want to gather evidence of older IE stages, I'd recommend
you study other language families which were in contact with IE or
genetically related to it, namely Altaic, Kartvelian, Afrasian (Semitic)
and Tyrrhenian (Etruscan). I myself learnt a great deal from Bomhard (as
well as other Nostraticists), in despite I disagree with his model.

> > 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
>
> False. N° 1 is only mine. In Alinei's mind, in-situ-developments
> start from Post-Proto-Italic phase
>

I'm sure you mean "Italoid" ("Italide" in the Italian original), which
he places in the Gravettian (!). The only difference is you start with
an already differentiated PIE while he proposes an earlier diffusion
with the first colonization by Cromagnoids.

> > AFAIK, modern PIE reconstructions abolished the "schwa secundum" and
> > replaced it by h2.
>
> False, see Schrijver 1991
>

Could you quote it for me?

> 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?
>
> Of course not, see above. I'm telling you that Germanic *xizd-o:n and
> Greek kíste: can be related only if you postulate that Gk.

kíste:

> (beside having its -t- from a different suffix) has /kist-/ from

*/kst-/

>

Forgive my ignorance, but I'd like a more detailed explanation.