Re: Ligurian Barga and */p/ (was: Ligurian)

2012/6/6, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> (...) 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.

> DGK:
> 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.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

Yes, sure. With "guesses" I meant something neutral: one realizes
(or proposes) that language X is IE, but has then to discover the
detalis of its diachronic phonology; he has to start with equations
where, for instance, vocalism can either represent the direct
evolution of one and the same vowel or exhibit the direct evolution of
a different ablaut grade: just like Aryan /a/ in closed syllable vs.
Greek /o/ can be either PIE */e/ or */o/, Ligurian vowels can be
directly equated with their matches in the corresponding words from
other IE languages (this is the guess) but can also represent, as an
alternative, a different ablaut grade (this is a guess as well).
In the Celtic Hypothesis, the only - great - guess is the
hypothesis itself; all the rest are corollaries (evaluation of vowels
included).

>> > 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)

> DGK:
> Latin <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-.
>
> I accept your reasoning about Piem. <olca>, and I will stop citing it in
> this connection, but we still have Trent. <porca>.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

In Trentine <porca>, <c> = [k], as long as it's before
non-stressed /a/, can continue both Latin (and Pre-Latin) /k/ and
/kw/.
If it were from */k/, it would be a very strange Illyrian word,
since it would exhibit IE short /o/ (not /a/) but satem treatment
(/k/) of the labio-velar */kw/, unless You maintain PIE syllabic /r/
has become /or/ (open [ɔ]) as in Italic instead of /ri/ as in
Albanian.
If it were from */kw/, it would be a conservative IE form (*porkwa:)

>> > 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 Matasović for the Golden Book
>> of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović 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 Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
>> it's useless to continue

> DGK:
> All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted (as
> most Celtologists do!) any more.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as a Celtic
language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid misunderstandings,
it's so difficult to avoid them)