From: dgkilday57
Message: 69639
Date: 2012-05-18
>Correction: It was I who fumbled the ball by not examining the references.
> 2012/5/12, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2012/5/10, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
> >> >
> >> Enough time already. Perhaps this represents *bHr.h1-teh2- formed from
> >> the set.-root observed in Grk. <pheretron>, Skt. <bharitram>, Lat.
> >> <feretrum> 'bier, litter, stretcher'. The force of *-h1 as a
> >> root-extension is not immediately obvious. Possibly it signifies 'to
> >> completion, to the end'. A born child has been carried to the end of
> >> child-bearing (i.e. birth), and a dead person is carried on the bier
> >> to his final resting-place. Thus *bHer- 'to carry', *bHerh1- 'to carry
> >> to the end'. Cf. *kel- 'to strike, hew', *kelh1- 'to strike
> >> (decisively)'.
> >>
> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> >>
> >> see my message of 2012/5/2 (21:36 Swiss time) : the only alternative
> >> to appertinentive Vrddhi *bho:r-ti-s would from seá¹ variant *bherH-
> >> with zero-grade and, pace Jens, derivative -h2 (from feminine)
> >> *bhrH-th2-i-s (> Celtic *barti-s like *bardo-s < *gwrH-dhh1-o-s with
> >> 'Schrijver's Law')
> >> I'd already published that
> >
> > Yes, you suggested a set.-root, then fumbled the ball by failing to provide
> > evidence from outside Celtic. I did provide it.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> My God. I didn't provide it because it's well known at least since
> Hamp 1982, to whom I've made refernce in my publication. If You have
> indipendently discovered it again between my message (2012/5/12,
> 21:36) and now (or even earlier), good for You. As for fumbling the
> ball, I was already playing against myself in that I was, for the sake
> of completeness, making clear that bairt doesn't have just one
> explication, but two. I recognize without problems when an explication
> insn't the only one. Remember that I was answering a question about
> the *possible* evidence. Should I have not mentioned it at all? Or has
> it been better to mention it, provided that I added a
> counterexplanation?
> DGK:If Matasovic' is correct in deriving Celt. *barro- 'point, top' by normalizing an old root-noun *bHr.s-, nom. sg. *bHo:rs, he appears to support your position.
> > You are now free to argue
> > that Barzio and Barziago can be Celtic in origin from the same set.-root,
> > but OIr <bairt> no longer provides compelling evidence for a Celtic
> > /o:/-grade in the Barg- place-names.
> > You can append as many laryngeals as
> > you like to *bHr.g^H- and still get Celt. *brig-.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> We are still back at my message of 2012/5/12, 21:36. What about "OIr.
> alt -o-, n. 'joint, articulation, state' : Gk. péplos, laryngealless
> (does it exist?) 3. â*pel- (Pokorny 802-803, Mallory - Adams 1997:
> 63)? MatasoviÄ's *pol-to- (121) implies a loan from Germanic, but
> *po:l-to-m would be regular."
> Anders <ollga_loudec@...> wrote (2012/5/12, 23:50) "Sure,
> this is a possible etymology. The meaning of *pel- seems to be 'to
> fold', from which 'joint, articulation' is a plausible development.
> But the etymology is hardly inevitable." Do You want still more? Then
> I ask You to provide, please, evidence for the development */o:rC/ >
> /orC/. I repeat that every instance of such development can per
> definitionem be analysed as PIE normal short */orC/, so a clear
> counterexample is virtually impossible.
> >No. I cannot continue my objection.
> >> <pruuia> /bruwya:/ :
> >> > Gaulish bri:ua: 'bridge' insists on an onomasiologic difference in
> >> > Celtic itself (bri:ua: vs. drochet).
> >>
> >> DGK:
> >> The Lepontic form is <pruiam> and I can see no principled way of
> >> getting it out of *bHreh1wo- 'bridge'.
> >>
> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> >> You probably don't have seen my analysis of bri:ua: < *bhre:u(H)ah2
> >> (2012/5/9, 13:24 Swiss time):
> >> "Gaulish *Bri:wotti: (bri:ua: 'bridge' = Romance ponte) < Celtic
> >> *Bri:wottoi <- *Bri:wottu:s < Late IE *Bhre:wotnó:s < PIE
> >> *Bhre:u(H)o-tnó-h1es < *Bhre:u(H)o-tnH-ó-h1es 'extensions of Bridge (=
> >> Ponte)' with *Common* PIE 'neognós' laryngeal deleting"
>
> > DGK:
> > Unnecessary complexity, since *bHreh1wo- suffices to explain the attested
> > Celtic forms, and Gmc. *-gg- requires *-h{x}w- anyway (cf. Lehmann).
> >
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Where's the problem? Germanic *bruwwjõn < PIE
> *bhruH-w(i)yah2-[h1/3]o:n, root â*bhreuH- and normal Hoffmann
> suffixation to *bhruH-w(i)yah2 > Lepontic /bru:wija:/ (for the sake of
> completeness: Germanic *bruwwjõn can also continue PIE
> *bhru-k-(i)yáh2-[h1/3]o:n).
> Your favourite reconstruction with root *bhreh1(w)- simply requires
> *bhro(:)Hwah2 (of course, not zero-grade *bhrh1w-iyah2-[h1/3]o:n- >
> Gmc. â *burggwjõ...; this is written for the sake of completeness), but
> You see that my sequence too is perfectly in accordance with Germanic
> (why "complexity"? Is â*bhreuH- more complex than â*bhreHw-?)
> >> DGK:I do not object to Gaulish personal names in Lepontic (in my view, Ligurian) inscriptions.
> >> I suggest instead the acc. sg. of *gWrh2u-jeh2- 'heavy stone',
> >>
> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> >>
> >> Why *laryngeal deletion in *gWrh2u-jeh2-? Shouldn't it yield â⬠*baruja:
> >> or â⬠*bra:wja: according to syllabification?
> >
> > D'oh! Yes, this should be /o/-grade *gWroh2u-jeh2- yielding Old Lepontic
> > *bro:wja:- > Lep. /bru:ja:-/ <pruia-> by the same soundlaw which gives Lep.
> > <tetu> /dedu:/ 'has given' < *dedo:w < *de-deh3-w = Skt. <dada:u>.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Long /o:/ in final syllable yields long /u:/ in Celtic as well
> (since you don't ascribe Lepontic to Celtic), while Your transfer of
> the (modified) law (in that You assume that the whole diphthong is
> monophthongized) to the inner of the word would be only Lepontic, but
> ad hoc (this, I repeat, is not per se bad, but weaker than a treatment
> that can have at least a parallel in Celtic) and above all at variance
> with Ornavasso Latumarui with /-ma:ro-/ < PIE *moh1-ro-, whose /a:/ <
> PIE */o:/ is typically Celtic
> > DGK:Not in my opinion. Four years ago in message #58889 I argued (pace M. Prosper Avril) that this (apparently) divine name means 'Village-Feeder' vel sim., the second element being identical to Skt. -pa:la- 'shepherd', and derived from *peh2- 'to guard, protect, take care of, feed, etc.' This could very well be the epithet of a river-goddess. It means the penult of TREBOPALA must be long (which, sadly, we cannot determine).
> > I agree with +*baruja: as the likely outcome of zero-grade, since the best
> > explanation I have of Lep. <pala> 'grave' is /bala:/ < *gWlh1-eh2 from
> > *gWelh1- 'to swallow up, gulp down' (cf. Grk. <deletron>, <delear> 'fishing
> > bait'). In an inhumating society, the ground swallows up the dead.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Good etymology. So, nothing to do with Lusitanian Trebopala?
> > DGK: FromDistribution is, of course, only one piece of evidence.
> > the anit.-root *gWel- 'to open for swallowing, gape' I derive *gWl.-meh2
> > 'gaping hole' whence Ligurian *balma: 'cave, grotto, overhanging cliff,
> > etc.' You are free to derive this from Celtic with the set.-root,
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> There's no difference. Both anit.-*gwo:l-mah2 and set.-*gwo:lh1-mah2
> (with Saussure's laryngeal deletion) would have the same outcome (set.
> zero-grade *gwlh1-mah2 is in any case excluded, since it would yield
> *bla:ma:). Indirect evidence for /o/ grade (although short /o/, but
> anyway a good base for a vrddhi formation) is Dalmatian garma (<
> *galma), with exactly the same meaning.
> You see that I don't re-open the question of Ir. lem (*l.-mo-s or
> *li-mo-s?), otherwise I could claim that even *gWl.-meh2 could be
> Celtic (but, since it's most disputed, I don't affirm that).
>
> > DGK: but the
> > distribution of pre-Roman *balma: is Ligurian (centered on Genovese).
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> You have just now written that onomasiological differences are
> commonplace in historical languages. Grzega 2001 is full of Celtic
> relics limited to single Alpine areas. Nothing strange that a lexical
> item is limited to Liguria, just like other ones are limited to single
> Gaulish tribes (Jud, "Mots d'origine gauloise?", Romania 1920, 1921,
> 1923, 1926)
> > DGK: IScience is stymied by Pan-Celticism.
> > regard pre-Roman *balwa: (in Upper German <Balfen>, <Palfen>, etc.) as the
> > Gaulish borrowing from Lig. *balma:, not a separate formation. More later.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Since having rejected an idea of Yours is still taking an enormous
> amount of time, I'll abstain from any comment. I limit myself to reply
> to Your attacks on my positions
>
> >> (...)
> >> Archaeology shows a succession of cultures (Lagozza,
> >> Canegrate-Golasecca and so on); maybe each culture is a different
> >> population (but not genetically different), maybe not. Let's admit
> >> that each culture corresponds to a different population; the last one
> >> is Celtic. Does this imply that the former weren't Celts? Obviously it
> >> doesn't imply anything. Celts can supersede on other Celts. A
> >> difference in culture cannot necessarily imply difference of language
> >> family (otherwise the Suebians couldn't have attacked the Usipetes and
> >> Tencteri...)
>
> > DGK:
> > In your view, then, EVERYBODY was Celtic. This is only supposed to happen
> > on St. Patrick's Day.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> How scientific a reply
> > [Bh.]:All right, obviously I need to move from baloney-labeling into the realm of cool, calm, collected reasoning.
> >> As I have already twice made clear, IE place-names with conserved
> >> inherited /p/ don't necessarily represent a pre-Celtic layer until
> >> they don't show any non-Celtic innovation. You can call them
> >> "Porcoberians" or what You like; I had used Giulia Petracco Sicardi
> >> label "Celtic", but they are in fact Late IE not fully celticized.
> >> Have I been sufficiently clear?
>
> > DGK:
> > *Barg- represents a non-Celtic innovation. All you do is dismiss clear
> > evidence of non-Celtic innovations.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Please. It's not my aim to convince You. We are publicly discussing
> an a topic of common interest, but it should be clear that what is
> being discussed cannot per definitionem constitute "clear evidence".
> If You don't accept to discuss it, let's stop once for all a useless
> waste of time. You'll in any case keep Your idea and I won't bother
> You any more. You are satisfied with such "evidence", good luck
> >(...) If there were non-Celtic inovations,I do not understand your -ate-place-name argument, although I had no trouble understanding and accepting your argument about Valtl. <verca>.
> >> they would be recognized as such. E.g., a place-name â⬠Medioplo:nom (or
> >> â⬠Mediopla:nom, depending on it final member's etymology) could be
> >> immediately recognized as Venetic or Latin, â⬠Mefioplu:no resp.
> >> â⬠Mefiopla:no as Italic, â⬠Midiaflo:na- as Germanic and so on.
> >>
> >> The proof is that, of course, although a regular Celtic etymology
> >> would be possible (for â⬠Medioplo:nom *medio- + *plo- + *(f)ono-, where
> >> *plo- < PIE *kwl(H)-o-, compounded form of *kwlH-ah2 > pala:, with
> >> neognós laryngeal deletion, and *(f)ono- < *pono- 'water'), the risk
> >> of a casual coincidence with real Celtic lexical items (*medio-, pala
> >> and *ono-) would be nevertheless higher in such a three disyllables
> >> analysis than in a straightforward comparison between the entire
> >> tetrasyllable compound *Mediola:non and its potential Venetic match.
> >> Therefore, the etymology of â⬠Medioplo:nom as the Venetic outcome of
> >> PIE *Medhyo-plh1no-m (> Celtic *Mediola:non) is statistically more
> >> probable than the analysis of â⬠Medioplo:nom as the Celtic output of
> >> PIE *Medhyo-kwlHo-pono-.
> >>
> >> Bormo- < PIE *gwhor-mo- and Barga < PIE *bhrg'h-ah2 don't have the
> >> same statistical superiority on *bhor-mo- and *bho:rg'h-ah2 because 1)
> >> the length of the comparanda isn't higher for non-Celtic (two
> >> syllables) than for Celtic reconstructions (two syllables), and 2) the
> >> non-Celtic diachronic phonology isn't independently established.
>
> > DGK:
> > In other words, you peremptorily dismiss the evidence.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> I cast doubts on alleged evidence. There's no independent evidence,
> only three place-names stems that can equally well be analyzed as
> Celtic.
> Sure, You point out that my faith in Celtic /arC/ < PIE /o:rC/ has
> only one piece of evidence (Ir. alt) in its favour, but at least it's
> one and independent from the etymology in discussion; You don't seem
> to have even that one (if I may observe)...
> Once again: this doesn't mean it's wrong; it's perfeclty possible,
> but my explanation is at least equally possible, so till now nobody
> prevails. My argument relies on the much heavier probability that
> -ate-place-names offer for an in-situ-development of Cisalpine Celtic
> from PIE; I've also argued, during this discussion, for the higher
> probability of the classical etymon *h1ah2tus for (residual) °-a:tus
> in place-names; all this suggests that the undeniable instances of
> preserved IE /p/ in Liguria and the Orobian Alps are conservative
> phenomena and since, as we have to admit, possible non-Celtic
> developments aren't irrefutable, the more economic solution is to all
> IE presences in Cisalpine as just one layer.