Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> Belgu:i the (d) of a (m) name < ~ Belgae
>
> > That's OK. However, in despite of some attempts, the ethonym Belgae
> > doesn't look to be Celtic at all, but IMHO it could be related to the
> > Gaulish ethnonym Volcae, from *uolco- 'hawk' (cfr. Welsh gwalch, Latin
> > falco:) < *g^wel-k-.
>
> There's no reason it can't be Celtic.
>

You apparently forgot Caesar's DBG.

> Either bolgaim = swell MIr; belgan = be angry OE;
> or *shining > bal~gans = whitish Latv;
>

But surely only the first one is Celtic, isn't it?

> and in typically-formed IE names: Belgius, Bólgios .
>

I didn't pretend Lepontic was non-IE.

> is^os = he < *sos , ì+ (clitic) ?
>
> > Possibly related to Latin ipse, ipsum, thus 'himself'.
>
> It shouldn't be trans. 'himself', just 'he' with the specification that it's the same person referred to previously (in the sentence), possibly with various other strictures we can't see from the limited data.
>

Not really, as we've got one subject and two predicates. So 'he also', 'himself' are valid expressions in this context.

> It's the i- that adds this specification, and Hamp probably related it to iti (thinking that s^ < ts , but I think it's just s^ < s after i, etc.).
>

I think this is actually *iC-s´os, where C could be 

> palam {pallam} (a) = stone (mt, grave , etc. ?)
> (see: all = rock/cliff OIr; pélla Hes G; pétra = rock,
> pétros = stone G; etc. )
>
> > As I said before, this can't be IE at all (much less Celtic), although
> > it could be still distantly related to *pel-s- (the Greek forms don't
> > belong here).
>
> Celtiberian retained p also.
>

Not that I'm aware of. Some apparent cases of /p/ (e.g. silaPur) are actually due to the ambiguity of the semisyllablic Iberian script used by Celtiberians for their own language-, and other such as Complutum are due to the Latinization of a native form *Comblutom.

Anyway, Lepontic pala (not **palla) can be anything but Celtic.

> Some environments caused p > kW (later kW > p in some), not fully understood yet, too. There's no reason to assume any other origin.
>

I think the expression "there's no reason" should be understood as "I can't think otherwise".

> > Given this evidence, it's unlikely Lepontic would be a Celtic language,
>
> The evidence shows it is Celtic, as many linguists can see.
>

This is no real argument but assertion of *dogma*. If you read me well, I said some specialists have confused a Cisalpine variety of Gaulish with the real Lepontic language.

> The presence of p is not against this if the common Celtic change was p > pF ,
> with most dia. pF > F > xW , etc.
>
> > I beg your pardon?
>
> Most Celtic shows p- > (h)- and -p- > -w-,
>

AFAIK -w- is only attested in Lepontic uvamo-, so this isn't "most Celtic".

> just like Armenian, and pt > xt but wtH in Armenian, which allows an intermediate p>F>xW to be reconstructed.
>

I see. But other stops also give /x/ before /t/, so this can't be conclusive.

I should recognize your idea is interesting, but it still needs some working. For example, to explain the different outcomes of Celtic *w- in Goidelic (Irish f-) and Brythonic (Welsh gw-).


But we've got actualt evidence of p-Celtic loanwords into Goidelic where /p/ was adpated as /kW/.