Re: IE models (was: Ligurian)

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

>
> You can say - quite paradoxically - that Potomac isn't an English
> river name, but you'll never dare to say that London isn't an English
> name. Of course, London isn't a Germanic name, it doesn't belong to
> the hereditary component of English language, but there has never been
> a moment in which English didn't have the name London.
>
> If you maintain that there's have a been a moment or more in which
> Gaulish didn't have *akWa: > *apa: (*/kW/ is necessary in order to
> obtain Gaulish /p/) you have to postulate that Gaulish came to Gaul
> shortly before the first mention of Gauls by Ancient Authorities,
> unless you prefer to view Apa-names as Indo-European formations on
> *h2ap- 'water'
>

AFAIK, this *ap- is just one of the various paleo-IE 'water' roots: *akW-a:, *ap-/*ab-, *ip-/*ib-,*up-/*ub- studied by Villar.

> in that case you'll think that Gauls have become
> acquainted with apa-names only after non only the Celtic
> dephonologization of /p/, but also the emerging of a new /p/ in
> p-Celtic. Is it correct?
>

Yes, it is.

> A theorem is made of axioms, definitions, hypotheses, a thesis, its
> demonstration, a conclusion, and corollaries.
> As I've more than once stated, I've just an axiom: the
> Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze.
>

As you once made clear to us (remember the 1957 incident?), your personal clock is a century back.

> My hypothesis is to apply IE sound-laws to the maximum amount of
> linguistic material of early attested IE languages.
> My thesis is that such an application doesn't leave anything
> unexplained or explained just by further ad-hoc assumptions.
> My demonstrations are the (thousands) regelmässige etymologies I produce.
>

Which *nothing* guarantees to be right.

> My conclusions comprise the negation of the necessity of the existence of multiple layers.
>

Which defies common sense.