Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

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

> > Plenty of grave stones say only "pala" and the dative of the deceased; it's pala = stone, pruia = grave (even though both came from words for stone (w cairn > grave/etc.) in PIE, their meaning at the time is what matters).
>
> Now THAT makes no sense. Anyone can see that a stone is a stone. The only reason to mention a stone on a stone is when the stone itself is significant. In most cases it is not. Carving takes time and carving 'stone' on a stone wastes it.
>

Why do you continue to attempt to use logic to disprove things already known to be true? Plenty of items in all areas of IE have inscriptions that are only (or include) the name for the thing. Why carve "horna" on a horn?; it would save time not to.


As I said, the PIE meaning of the word was 'stone', and in time it came to refer to grave stones (perhaps still to others, too, but we can't tell from the ev.). Even if it primarily or only meant 'stone', it's the writing of both it and the name of the deceased (and sometimes more) that fulfills what is by custom needed on a grave. Are you saying that not only should they have only put the name of the deceased on it, but that they COULDN'T have done anything else because it's not logical to say 'X's stone' or 'X's grave' because it wastes space? They couldn't even write "this stone marks X's grave' because it included 'stone' ?