From: dgkilday57
Message: 69786
Date: 2012-06-07
>I do not see how to delete the root-laryngeal implied by Skt. <ku:pa->; that is, a (formally full-grade) *keuh{x}p- 'hollow, cup, etc.'
> 2012/5/23, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> >
> > ---
> > DGK again:
> > I misread the map index. Bart is on the French side of the border in De'p.
> > Doubs, doubtless identical with the one you found. This is still in the
> > area where Ligurian place-names are to be expected. J. De'chelette's
> > "Ligure Transalpine" includes Provence, Dauphine', and Savoie, not
> > archaeologically Celticized until the La Te`ne period. I would extend
> > "Greater Liguria" further north to include the watersheds of the Sao^ne,
> > Ain, and Doubs, Alsace-Lorraine, and probably the whole Mosel-Rhein
> > interfluve up to Koblenz.
> >
> > Dibio (Dijon) and Vesontio (Besanc,on) look to me like Ligurian formations,
> > recalling Avenio (Avignon) and Arausio (Orange) in Provence. I can find no
> > Celtic reflexes of *dHeigW- in Matasovic', which would be suitable for
> > Dibio. On the other hand Matisco (Ma^con) is a Gaulish formation, 'la ville
> > des Matisci, des bonnes gens' (P. Lebel, Ann. Acad. Ma^con 33:21, 1938),
> > which itself recalls Gallo-Latin Taurisci 'Mountaineers', evidently built on
> > Lig. *tauro- 'mountain', but with -isc- not -asc-, not a Lig. formation.
> > And obviously Lug(u)dunum 'Lyon' is Gaulish. Not everything in "Greater
> > Liguria" is necessarily Ligurian in origin, I readily admit.
> >
> > Borbetomagus (Worms-am-Rhein) has already been discussed; I am in favor of
> > Lig. *Borm- here. Gallo-Latin <-pottus> '-potter' in inscriptions of Trier
> > and westward could be regarded as a Lig. loan if Lig. underwent Kluge's
> > assimilation. That is, alongside PIE *po'd-om 'earthen container' (OE
> > <faet> 'cask, vat', etc.) I would posit *pod-no's 'maker of earthen
> > containers, potter' > Lig. *pottos, through Treveran Gaulish to G-L *pottus.
> > The term for 'pot' reflected in Romance, G-L *pottum (?) might have been
> > extracted from *potta:ria nt. pl. 'potter's works, pottery'.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> Your opinion on Greater Liguria is very interesting, but You'll
> concede that this is simply the sum of Your hypotheses; it has per se
> nothing more than a clarifiying value.
> Using two suffixes as guides for the presece of two separate
> languages is too optimistic. In such a way You could postulate,
> associating suffixes with hypothetically different vocalic outputs of
> PIE ablaut, a substrate for every suffix. There's no need of many
> arguments; I've already mentioned the kind of argument I'd promptly
> accept - a notorious compound formation like e.g. *Medhyo-plh2nom in a
> clearly non-Celtic innovating form like e.g. Mefiopla:nom (whose -
> theoretically always possible - competing Celtic explanation would
> require more ad hoc constructions).
> My own proposal for pottus, pottum: PIE *kup-o-tnH-ó-s (with neognós
> laryngeal deletion and Celtic Stokes' = Germanic Kluge's Law)
> 'extender of cups', *kup-o-tnH-ó-m 'extension of a cup' > Celtic
> *kuottos, *kuottom > *kwottos, *kwotton > Gaulis *pottos, *potton.