--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
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.'
Regarding a non-Celtic
innovation, I believe we have one in Genua, Lig. *Genua:, from *genewa: or *genowa: '(town) on the corner (of the Ligurian Sea)', PIE *g^enu- 'corner, angle; knee; jaw'. That is, before *-wa(:)- a SHORT vowel is lost with subsequent vocalization of */w/ to /u/. (Gena:va has a LONG vowel and a different formation, along with Fundus Gena(:)via of course.)
Thus the river Druantia in Liguria Transalpina (now Durance) can be equated with Skt. Dravanti: 'Running (River)' f. from *drew-n.tih2, with the same Lig. innov. absent from Celtic. Likewise the smaller rivers Drance (*Druantia) in Kt. Wallis, and Durance in De'p. Manche, with Drouance in De'p. Calvados, Normandie. That is, Greater Liguria stretched across Gaul until it was split by Gaulish invasion and expansion from the south (cf. Liv. 5:34). Genabum (later Aureliani, now Orleans) in central Gaul does not follow Joseph's Law and must be
pre-Celtic.
DGK