From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69616
Date: 2012-05-14
> --- 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.
>
>