Re: pottus, Genua, Durantia (was: Bart; was: Ligurian)

2012/6/7, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>
> --- 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.

> DGK:
> 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.'

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

You have no need to delete it; the root itself has vacillating
length of /u/ and, since it has many different enlargements (IEW
588-592), it's almost evident that e.g. Czech kep etc. (I beg Your
pardon) < Proto-Slavic kъpъ (k"p") < PIE *kup-o-s, Old English, Middle
English hoppe, Latin cuppa (> Romance coppa) are based on √*keu- +
*-p- while <ku:pa-> is on √*keu- + *-H- * -p-

> DGK:
> 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.)

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

Be careful please: Latin <Genua> > Tuscan Genova (like Mantua >
Mantova and other instances of -ua < *-owa:) is to be read ['gɛnuwa]
(otherwise it would have yielded Tuscan †Genva, Genoese †Zeva) and has
non-stressed */o/ > /u/ raising in open syllable before /w/, so the
Ligurian form must have been *Genowa: exatcly what You have written
before (i.e. without) any supposedly Ligurian non-Celtic innovation.
Gena:ua is of course a different formation, a vrddhi one:
*G'enh1/2o:wah2 (*h1 or *h2 according to the etymology: *g'enh1- if
'Natives' place', *g'enh2- if 'Corner' ('Knee') or 'Mouth' ('Jaw'))

> DGK:
> 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.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

again the same disregard for ablaut. Nothing excludes a
straightforward *Dru-n.t.i(a)h2 (with Lindeman anlaut /druw-/) >
Druantia. Joseph's Law is stress-sensitive (cf. Irish ben 'woman' <
*gwenh2) and therefore Genabum simply reflects ['genabon]