Re: Celtic Ligurian? (was: Ligurian)

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

>
> 2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > DGK:
> > I do not understand your -ate-place-name argument, although I had no trouble
> > understanding and accepting your argument about Valtl. <verca>.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> Maybe it can be reduced to a few independent issues:
> 1) Do You agree that -ate-place-names in Romance countries with
> Celtic substrate correspond to Gallo-Romance -at- / -é- place-names?

Yes, provided the accent was Latinized to the long penult (as it usually was).

> 2) Do You agree that -ate-place-names with a river name as their
> derivational basis are situated on prehistorical fords?

Yes, but this has questionable significance. Settlements on rivers very commonly occur at fords. Place-names derived from rivers, occurring at fords, ending in -a:te could just as easily be neuter adjectives in *-a:ti- with a neuter word for 'ford' (e.g. Latin <vadum>) understood. There is no reason to assume that all such, or even many such, names are compounds with 'ford' as the second element. Indeed compound names in '-ford' need not involve the river. Oxford is not on the River *Ox, Frankfurt is not on the River *Frank, etc.

> 3) Do You agree that -ate-place-names have exact matches in Irish Áth-names?

Some might. A generalization would be very hazardous.

> 4) Do You agree that, of the two correct (and, in my humble opinion,
> both real) etymologies for Irish áth, the one with motivation 'going'
> fits better than the one with motivation 'breaking' the reference to a
> ford?

Yes.

> 5) Do You agree that a Celtic compound *[River Name]-o-ja:tus would
> have yielded Romance †*-oggiàte et sim. instead of *-àte?

Yes.

> 6) Do You agree that a PIE compound *[River Name]-o-h1yah2-tu-s would
> have yielded Celtic *-a:tu-s?

Very likely.

> I think that the first three passages can be positively answered by
> anyone. N° 4 is somewhat puzzling, but has the least weight on the
> whole issue. N° 5 implies an almost inescapably positive answer, at
> least to my limited knowledge; so, only n° 6 is really crucial.
> It's made of three passages:
> 6.1) Old Indic ya:tu- has a word-initial laryngeal (*/h1/)
> 6.2) *-o-HyV- yields *-o:yV- even in compound junction
> 6.3) *-o:ya:- yields Celtic *-a:-ja:- > *-a:-
> N° 6.1. depends on etymology; n° 6.2. is proven by e.g. Old Indic
> Viçva:mitra-; n° 6.3. is proven by Celtic *-i-stem nom. pl. *-ey-es >
> *-e:s > *-i:s.
> After all, the weakest point is the etymology of Late IE *ya:- 'go'

But such an argument does not show that all, or even many, -a:te-names must involve 'ford' as a second element. Since the suffix *-a:ti- was productive with Italic, Celtic, and Ligurian place-names (for the latter, see <Langatium> gen. pl. = <Langensium>, Sent. Minuc.), and had no particular connection with fords (e.g. Valerius Antias 'Valerius of Antium', the archaism Ardeatis Rutulus 'the Rutulan (people) of Ardea', Cato ap. Prisc.), we have no good reason to insist that -a:te-names are not just neuter local adjectives with <vadum> or whatever understood.

> > DGK:
> > Now, how do you deal with Hubschmied's Rhaetic *plo:ro- = Celt. *la:ro- =
> > Gmc. *flo:ra- (ZRPh 62:116-7, 1942)? This looks like clear evidence for
> > another pre-Celtic Alpine stratum, namely Rhaetic (clearly IE, against those
> > who see it as Etruscoid).
> >
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> It's noteworthy that J. U. Hubschmied himself, despite his son's
> opinion, a few years later came to believe that Rhaetic was indeed
> Etruscoid.
> Anyway, in his 1942 paper, his evidence (that I read only on p. 117,
> the bottom of p. 116 being devoted to the highly convincing comparison
> of Pli:nius with Lith. plynas by Robert v. Planta - I've seen many
> times the inscription of the Plinii Calui in Como) comprised Plur,
> name of fields or meadows near Mals, Taufers, Tartsch, and Innsbruck,
> and the Romauntsch hexonym Plurs for Piur(o) in Valchiavenna (Sondrio,
> Lombardy).

I was going to mention the bald Plinii, then recalled that you had already done so, and I neglected to correct the page numbers.

> This latter starts to be registered as Pluri in 1092 (then in 1137,
> 1141, 1144, 1155, 1171; 1170 Plurium, 1238 Plurio), but the form with
> /j/ was already in use since 973 (unless to be read <Prore>) and in
> any case in 1155 Piuro (1144, 1187, 1191 Puri, Purio). The first sure
> reading is 1021 Prore (same in 1125). Either is Pluri dissimilated or
> is Prore an assimilation form; anyway, Prore (1025, perhaps already
> 973) antedates Pluri, and even in the case the attestation of 973
> isn't Prore but Piore the form with /pl-/ looks like a restitution of
> an already #pj-sounding anlaut (note that in 973 the palatalization
> /pl/ > /pj/ had not yet taken place, so the restitution of 1092 is
> very probably a false one, just in the phase of the sound change).
> Since the central village of Piur(o) is named Prosto, a connection
> between both names is highly probable. Pro-sto looks like Celtiberian
> Pouśtom (= Lombard Busto < *Bousto-), but the local form of Piuro is
> Piur [pjy:r], at variance with the /o/ of Prore (which should have
> given [u:]). My hypothesis is that both [pjy:r] < *Plu:ri: (if
> dissimilated from *Pru:ri:? The variants Puri and Purio would show
> /#CV-/ < /#CrV-/ like the local surnames Fanco- < Franco-) and <Prore>
> < *Pro:ri: can go back to a compound *Pro:-u(i)ri: 'men of *pro:-',
> where *pro:- = *kwroyo- (> Old Irish (t-ind-s-)cra-) = Old Indic
> krayá- 'price'; the *Pro:-u(i)ri: would have been Salesmen and
> *Pro-sto- their marketplace (as today is).

That is certainly ingenious, but I fear Meyer-Luebke would call it "zu sehr konstruiert".

> The other four occurrences of Plur (all quite far more Eastwards, in
> Tyrol) can plausibly continue *plo:ro-, but note that J.U. Hubschmied
> thought tha his Rhaetic (quite similar to Pokorny's (Veneto-)Illyrian,
> nowadays Anreiter's Ostalpenindogermanisch) had /o:/ < /a:/ like
> Germanic, therefore a non-Celtic innovation, while the very etymology
> simply shows retention of PIE long */o:/ and Anreiter himself clearly
> distinguishes OAIdg. /a/ < PIE short */o/ from the conservative
> treatment of PIE long */o:/.

Yes. Also J.U.H. considered *Plo:ra: the Rhaetic nt. pl., implying that Rhaetic maintained */o:/ distinct from */a:/, unlike either Germanic or Celtic. Too bad he could find only one plausible example.

> All in all, we come for the third time back to the same analysis: in
> Genoa's Hinterland, in the Orobian valleys (possible Heimat of the
> Plinii), and in Middle and Northern Tyrol we find retention of PIE
> */p/ (in Tyrol of long */o:/ as well), but never sure non-Celtic
> innovations

But we do have Trentine <porca>, which shows the absence of the Italo-Celtic (and possibly also Venetic) assimilation *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., thus demanding a non-Celtic IE substrate here, "Rhaeto-Illyrian" (or "OAIdg." if you wish).

DGK