From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 69730
Date: 2012-06-02
>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> --- 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?
> DGK:
> 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 theirBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> derivational basis are situated on prehistorical fords?
> DGK:
> 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 ÃBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> th-names?
> DGK:
> Some might. A generalization would be very hazardous.
>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 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?
> DGK:
> Yes.
>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 5) Do You agree that a Celtic compound *[River Name]-o-ja:tus would
>> have yielded Romance †*-oggià te et sim. instead of *-à te?
> DGK:
> Yes.
>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 6) Do You agree that a PIE compound *[River Name]-o-h1yah2-tu-s would
>> have yielded Celtic *-a:tu-s?
> DGK:
> Very likely.
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 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'
> DGK:
> 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.
>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> > 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).
> DGK:
> I was going to mention the bald Plinii, then recalled that you had already
> done so, and I neglected to correct the page numbers.
>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 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).
> DGK:
> That is certainly ingenious, but I fear Meyer-Luebke would call it "zu sehr
> konstruiert".
>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 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:/.
> DGK:
> 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.
>Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> 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
> DGK:
> 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
>
>
>