Re: Ligurian

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

>
> 2012/5/16, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>
> [...]
>
> > DGK:
> > What is the stem of Bart (Piem., prov. Novara)? Both d'Arbois (Les prem.
> > inh. de l'Europe, 1894, 2:92) and Bottiglioni (Elem. prel. della top. corsa,
> > 1929, 62) considered it connected with Bartasca (Cors., near Calvi),
> > providing evidence for a Ligurian stratum in Corsica.
> >
> > Further down on p. 62, Bottiglioni has the germ of a plausible theory of the
> > name Populonia. Servius thought it had been founded by Corsicans, but in
> > historical times it was ruled by Etruscans, under the name Pupluna (well
> > attested from coins). B. noted the similarity to Boplo (Sent. Minuc.).
> > Now, if *boplo: was a Ligurian appellative meaning 'defensible hill' vel
> > sim., it might have been applied to the hill of Populonia, with *boplo:
> > becoming *puplu "in bocca etrusca", and getting the Etr. suffix -na as the
> > name of the settlement which Etruscans took over. This makes more sense to
> > me than other explanations I have seen of Populonia.
> >
> >
> >
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> My own etymology of Boplo is *Bhh2-o-pl[h1]-o-h3on- 'which has the
> Castle in its sight' (the sit of Castelum Alianum).

You have one more etymology than I do for this puzzling name. Nevertheless I find it plausible that Etruscans borrowed it as an appellative *puplu. Bottiglioni regarded Monte Po'polo in NW Corsica as another reflex (he excluded <po:pulus> 'poplar' on phonetic grounds), but I am troubled by his ad-hoc regressive assimilation, *Bop(o)lo > Popolo. I consider it more likely that here again Ligurians called the place Boplo:, Etruscans *Puplu, and the latter name stuck.

I wonder if your etymology could be modified to yield a compound meaning 'lookout', 'overlook', or the like.

> Bartasca, river of Calvi and its valley, seems to imply a derivational
> stem *barto- or *barta- rather than *barti-, but of course that would
> be a minor difference (a matter of word-formation); Bart can in turn
> reflect *barto- (and indeed *barti-, albeit one would rather expect
> barc' ['barʧ] as most regular outcome), but not *barta-, which would
> remain unaltered.

Good. Thank you. Provisionally I will go with *barto-, since it gives no problem with the auslaut of Bart, and none with the form of Bartasca. I would expect *Bartiasca from *barti- since we have Neviasca beside (saltus) Nevidunus and the personal name Nevius. That is, *-i- is not absorbed before *-asca.

DGK