From: dgkilday57
Message: 69774
Date: 2012-06-06
>These "phases" overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE Ligurian long after Kretschmer's paper (which is hardly a set of "happy guesses"), and Rhy^s was arguing for Celticism even before Kretschmer's paper. I would say there are three schools of thought here. I belong to Kretschmer's, and you belong to Rhy^s's.
> 2012/5/25, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> 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/.
>
> > DGK:
> > Uh, no, _I_ did not agree that there were only two isoglosses. Those two
> > are simply the most obvious. Another, noted by Petracco Sicardi in "Top.
> > prerom. e rom. della Liguria" (pp. 9-82 of "Top. stor. della Liguria",
> > Genova 1981), is */-dt-/ > /-st-/, occurring in Blustiemelum and Clastidium.
> > P.S. (p. 39) derives Lig. *blusto- from *bHlud-to-, from the extended root
> > *bHleu-d- 'to swell, well up, overflow' vel sim. She takes *-iema as a
> > collective or abstract, so Blustiemelum might be understood as 'place of
> > frequent flooding, place of abundant landslips' vel sim. For Clastidium,
> > rather than *kl.d-to- from the root *keld- which she suggests (pp. 45-6),
> > which would yield Lig. *kalsto-, I believe we need *kl.h1d-to-, Lig.
> > *kla:sto-, from *kelh1-d- 'to strike hard, strike down' vel sim., the
> > zero-grade providing also the base of Latin <cla:de:s>.
> >
> > Another isogloss is */-onC-/ < */-n.C-/ in Blondelia, from *bHln.dHo-
> > 'reddish, ruddy', Gmc. *blunda-, Skt. bradhna- (P.S. p. 39).
> >
> > P.S. also sees earlier */e:/ becoming a long open front vowel (in contrast
> > to Gaul. /i:/), like Class. Grk. eta, transcribed as <ae> (cf. scaena,
> > scaeptrum). She derives (saltus) Craedelius from *kre:dH- as found in Lat.
> > <cre:ber>, which can describe a dense forest, crebra silva. Surely you are
> > familiar with this book. I suspect that more isoglosses will turn up with
> > further study.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Romance-speaking Scholars often fail to remember that PIE had
> productive ablaut rules. It's conceivable that Giacomo Devoto, judging
> more or less for the first time the possibility of an IE affiliation
> of Ligurian, took *blond- for a perfect match to *blunda-, but - as
> You have very aptly pointed out in Your following message - a
> different ablaut explication is perfectly justifiable.
> Giulia Petracco Sicardi's analysis of Craedelius is built on a
> systematic equation of <ae> with /É:/ which in turn reflects a typical
> Italian unwillingness to abandon the received (tradita) pronounciation
> of Latin in favour of the restituta; although it's a possible
> etymology, it implies that Ligurian either had no /ai/ or had no means
> to distinguish it from /É:/ in Latin script. I prefer a more
> Celtologic hypothesis, viz. Craedelius : OIndic kraid.iná- 'belonging
> to the winds', therefore Celtic *Kra:içd-elios (cf, Schrijver 1995
> SBCHPh: 376 ) < *Kra:izd-elios < PIE *Kro:isd-elyo-s (*krisd- 'move
> violently', Mayrhofer EWA I 413).
> For Blustiemelum I've proposed *bhleus- 'burn' or *bheluHs- 'beat',
> therefore with PIE *-st-; for *klasti- in Clastidium there's a much
> more direct PIE *klh2(t)-sti- > German Last.
> I think this is all. Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
> together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
> with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
> form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
> Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
> and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
> coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
> is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
> are trying to do.
> >> Since we agree that every instance of */p/-drop can be interpreted asLatin <quercus> shows that the assimilation preceded delabialization of *kW before *u. The length presumably comes from the same place as in Lat. <portu:nus>, etc.: denominal adjectival formations in *-h2no- and *-h2ni-.
> >> a Celtic intrusion into formerly Ligurian territory, we can't solve
> >> the second crucial point.
>
> > DGK:
> > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the assimilation
> > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-, *pr.kWeh2-
> > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by Celtic.
> > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese <olca>.
> > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense), "Illyrian"
> > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a Q-Illyrian
> > language spoken in Rhaetia.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
> from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
> Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
> formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
> *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
> *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
> Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
> to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
> hypercorrect reaction)
> >> In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted (as most Celtologists do!) any more.
> >> 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).
>
> > DGK:
> > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses between
> > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in the area
> > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical isoglosses
> > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about interpreting
> > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological isoglosses
> > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to regard
> > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are driving
> > at.
> >
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
> Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
> for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking MatasoviÄ for the Golden Book
> of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in MatasoviÄ could be
> Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
> even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
> definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
> criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
> Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
> doesn't occur in MatasoviÄ. Either You take a coherent position or
> it's useless to continue