From: dgkilday57
Message: 69620
Date: 2012-05-15
>All right, I must agree with your arguments above. You have shown in detail that Valtl. <verca> cannot be derived from Ill. *wraika:.
> >> From: dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>
> >> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:12 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [tied] Ligurian
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Yesterday I overlooked Valtellinese <verca> 'heather' which also requires
> >> Illyrian vocalism, *wraika:, thus coming from pre-Ligurian substrate. To
> >> you, no doubt, an additional stratum is an unnecessary complication. To
> >> me, it is a necessary one.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> An additional stratum may be an unnecessary complication; the point
> here is that *wraika: as preform of verca is phonologically irregular.
> There's no problem in /ai/ > /e/; the problem is *wre- > *wer-.
> It can't be neither Gaulish (You would expect *bre-, I would expect
> *vre- or *gre-) nor "Illyrian" (if You consider, with Bonfante, branca
> 'hand' of Illyrian origin from PIE *wronk-ah2 [I don't]).
> It can't be neither Latin (where *wr- > r-, if re- 'again' is from
> *wret-, otherwise preserved /#wr-/ if Uragus 'Orcus', Verr. ap. Fest.
> p. 202, is ['wra(:)gus]) nor Romance: in all Valtline / Valtellina
> there are
> brac' ['braʧ] / brec' (not â berc') 'arm' < brachium,
> crescént [kre'Êent] (not â cherscent) 'Crescent' < crescente(m),
> frenà r / frenér (not â fernér) 'brake' < fre:na:re,
> fresc'ch ['freÊk] (not â fersc'ch) 'cool' < Frankish frisk,
> gref (not â gherf) 'heavy' < Latin *greuis
> and many other instances of preserved /#Cre-/ (one cannot posit a
> hypothetical Latin-Romance rendering of foreign /#wr(a)i-/ by
> /#w(a)er-/ because it would contrast with /gre-/ and Your hypothetical
> /bre-/ of Celtic loanwords)
> /verC/ is always from /wer()C/, e.g. vèrgin 'virgin' also fig.,
> vergogna 'shame' (< Latin uerecundia), vergòt 'anything' (negative
> polarity term, allegedly from Latin uere gutta) and so on.
> You may invoke Ancient Ligurian, but it has no instances of /#wer-/ <
> */#wre-/ (Veraglasca in Sententia Minuciorum 19 is from *wer-) and
> moreover Procobera / Porcobera (ibid. 9, 10, 14, 22, 23), *if*
> reflecting a fluctuation (I'd prefer PIE Schwebeablaut *perk'- :
> *prek'-), would have /prok-/ < /pork-/ (as assured by Celtic orc,
> obviously not metathesized), the exact opposite of /werk-/ < */wrek-/.
> Johannes Hubschmid (i.a. my Teacher), in «Bezeichnungen für Erika undAgain, I must agree. The simplest explanation is /e/-grade.
> andere Sträucher, Gestrüpp und Auswüchse» (Vox Romanica. Annales
> Helvetici explorandis Linguis Romanicis destinati [Bern â" München,
> Verlag A. Francke] 27 [1968], S. 318-359), p. 335, reconstructed
> *werka: or *wirka: < PIE *wrk'-ah2 (with Balto-Slavic treatment of
> syllabic */r/ but centum treatment of palatal /k'/, therefore not
> [Alpine-]Illyrian - in Jokl's sense - but rather Venetic-Illyrian in
> Pokorny's sense; regular Venetic outcome would be â Vorka), but the
> root is *wer-k- (Pokorny 1155; notice its pure velar), ultimately an
> extension of the same 3. *wer- 'turn' (1152-1160) of *wreik- of
> *wroiko-s (1158-1159): so why not simply *werk-ah2?