2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>>
>> > DGK:
>> > > 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. √*pel- (Pokorny 802-803, Mallory - Adams 1997:
>> > 63)? Matasović'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.
>> 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.
>
> Gee, it's fun playing devil's advocate. If M.'s mechanism for deriving
> *barro- is acceptable, you (Bh.) could dispense with questionably motivated
> vr.ddhi-formations, and get Celt. *bargo- from another normalized root-noun,
> *bHr.g^H-/*bHorg^H-, nom. sg. *bHo:rg^H-s (presumably *bHo:rk^s, but
> speakers would be aware of the "deep structure"). That is, */o:/ would be
> generalized throughout the paradigm (as in Gmc. 'foot', etc.), and then a
> new thematic noun *bHo:rg^Ho- would be formed (like the Skt. by-form <pada->
> 'foot', but with lengthened grade because it had been generalized in the
> root-noun already). Then, *bHo:rg^Ho- > Paleo-Celtic *bo:rgo- > *ba:rgo- >
> *bargo- by Osthoff. QED.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
If You feel more satisfied with generalization of nominative
lengthened grade, we can go further in this discussion. I agree that
finding a morphological motivation for a lengthened grade is more
difficult and involves a reater degree of hypotheticity than a simple
phonological ascertainment. My vr.ddhi hypothesis remains on a general
level of interplay between morpho-phonology and grammaticalization of
such notions like quantity (collective) or appurtenance or metonymy
('made of') and so on, with reference to the coinage of place-names.
It will therefore always be questionable, although paradigm ablaut
levelling - albeit a thoroughly plausible development - is just as
well scarcely more than a good hypothesis. This is the best we can do
at present, despite the huge advances in the investigation of PIE
morphology that have been made since Schindler's and the Erlangen
School's new approach to the subject.
What's relevant is that a lengthened grade - of whatever origin,
let's admit for the sake of the argument from generalization of
nominative */o:/ - can indeed be postulated. I notice that You are
inclined to see it as a parallel levelling to the Common Celtic one
from *bhe:r'gh-s : *bhr.g'h- to generalized *bhr.g'h-s
> DGK:
> This is where distribution begins to matter. If Barg-place-names are not
> commonly found throughout the whole Pan-Celtic realm,
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be found in
Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas, Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias,
Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La Barge, Les Barges (Central and Western
France), Barjouville (1203 Barjovilla, Eure-et-Loir), Barjon (1169
Barjum, Côte-d'Or), Barjac (Ariège), where Bargius is by no way a
prototypical nomen. They are usually analyzed as occurrences of
Gaulish *barga > Western French barge 'meule de foin', but especially
when they are mountain or rock names (Les Barges d'Olonne,
Sable-d'Olonne, Vendéee; Le Bargy, SW of Cluses, Haute-Savoye) a
derivative of 'mountain' can be more appropriate, just like in
properly Ligurian area Mont des Barges (NW of Rabou, Hautes-Alpes),
Mont de la Barjaude (E/NE of Vérignon, Var)
> DGK:
> but a cluster includes
> Greater Liguria (with the Serchio and Lima valleys, where Pieri extracted
> *barga), then it would appear (under your Pan-Celtic model) that those
> ultra-conservative Porcoberan Celts, who were so good at holding their /p/,
> were also very good at using *Barg- as opposed to mainstream Celts.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Wait a minute. The only instance of Barg- in reasonable proximity
to Porcobera Valley is Bargagli (Genoa), in the valley of Bisagno
River, a place whose inhabitants are by the way most hated by the
Polceverines or inhabitants of Polcévera < *Purcifera = Porcobera
Valley.
Between Bargagli and Barga there are Borzone (< Brezono) and
Borzonasca (Genoa) < *brig- and Lavagna (Genoa), town and river, <
*lawo-(p)ania: 'water moor';
in Cuneo Province there are both Barge in the highest Po Valley and
Briaglia < *Brigalia nearer to Liguria, in Tanaro Valley;
in Brescia (< Brixia < *brig-) Province there's Barghe;
Bargano (Villanova del Sillaro, Lodi) lies between Milano <
Mediolanum < *Medhyo-plHnom and Cremona < *Kremo-ponah2;
in the Var Departement we have both Bregançon (Bormes[!], arrond.
Toulon-sur-Mer, canton Collobrières) and Bargème (814 Bergemulu,
1026-1064 Bargema; traditionally liked to Berigiema of the Sententia
Minuciorum!), Bargemon;
Briançon is both Ligurian (Basses-Alpes, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence;
Briançonnet Alpes-Maritimes) and Gaulish (Dordogne, Charente-Maritime,
Indre-et-Loire, Maine-et-Loire, Oise).
I think this suffices to show that *barg- and *brig- coincide in
their distribution and that there's no special correlation between
*barg- and retention of */p/
> DGK: In
> fact, all your model does is project the base of Celticity downward, so that
> /p/-retaining Ligurians are renamed as ultra-conservative /p/-retaining
> Porcoberan Celts. Now, what scholarly purpose can that serve? "I hereby
> plant this flag and claim this land for /p/-retaining Celts!"
>
> DGK
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I insist for the fourth time that it's just a matter of
terminology, as very aptly pointed out by Yourself. I wish I had never
used the term 'Celts' in this case. Let's please call them
'Conservative Late Indo-Europeans'; what's crucial is whether they
exhibit any non-Celtic innovation or not. If they don't, we can call
them 'Ultra-Conservatives' or just how You like; if they do, they earn
a denomination that can clearly distinguish them from the Celts.
Another (the other) crucial point is whether all Ancient Ligurians
retained PIE */p/.
Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
*/-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
are left with */gwh/ > /b/.
Since we agree that every instance of */p/-drop can be interpreted as
a Celtic intrusion into formerly Ligurian territory, we can't solve
the second crucial point.
In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
innovations from PIE;
*/gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
*/-rT-/ > /-arT-/ could be non-Celtic as well, but we agree that it
could also alternatively represent a characteristic Celtic treatment
of lengthened grades;
*/p/-drop is disputed and even when it could be evident it may
reflect Celtic infiltrations (this should in any case suggest to avoid
a too systematic use of 'Ligurian' as a unitary linguistic label for
all Ancient Liguria);
all remaining innovations are shared by Ligurian and Celtic and there
isn't such a concordance with any other IE linguistic class;
ergo, Ancient Ligurian is the IE linguistic class most similar to
Celtic: if */gwh/ > /b/ is true, Ligurian and Celtic are two
distinguished classes; if it isn't, Ligurian is distinguished from
Celtic only by a privative opposition (lack - maybe only in restricted
areas - of certain innovations).