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

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

>
> > Sorry, but this is contradicted by actual evidence. Celtic has shared
> > isoglosses with Eastern IE languages, namely Greek and Indo-Iranian. See
> > Karl Horst Schmidtt for more details.
>
> I know it. It's the sum of three factors:
> 1) isoglosses without migrations
> 2) Celtic presence in Central Europe
> 3) Retention of PIE heritage
>

I disagree, of course.

> > Also Old European Hydronymy (OEH)
> > isn't Celtic at all.
>
> Retention of PIE */p/ is no innovation (and moreover it's
> extremely scanty and marginal in Celtic areas); /a/ < /o/ is only
> based on the (by definition unwarranted) assumption it's short (in
> Romance areas there's no way to decide on vowel length, unless Latin
> poets provide evidence), and moreover even short /a/ is in all other
> instances regularly explainable as Celtic outcome (it couldn't be
> other than /a/, even in Celtic), e.g. in /al/ /ar/ /am/ /an/ sequences
> before /y/ /w/ /n/ /l/ /r/ or antevocalic laryngeal.
> Krahe himself thought in fact that OEH has been a stage of local
> IE languages. After him, IEsts have practically come back to
> 'Illyrian' under the label 'OEH'
>

OEH has *akW-a: while Celtic was *ab-. They're from different paleo-dialects.

> > But it doesn't appear to have any impact on your theory.
>
> It has a very great one. The difference between Nostratic and PIE
> becomes more and more vanishing. Almost everything you analyze as loan
> I view as common heritage
>

There're multiple layers and language replacements.