2012/6/5, dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/6/1, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > What does involve the etymology of Cremo:na is that 'wild garlic' is
>> > reconstructed as an /u/-stem *kremh{x}u-, that there is a town Crema
>> > about
>> > halfway between Cremona and Milan (medieval Crema, I do not have an
>> > ancient
>> > reference), and that the ancient Cremo:nis Jugum 'Yoke of Cremo'
>> > referred to
>> > the Graian Alps. I think we are dealing with pre-Celtic nouns
>> > corradical
>> > with Greek <krema'nnu:mi> 'I hang up, allow to hang down, etc.'.
>> > Glaciated
>> > montane areas contain "hanging valleys" through which tributary
>> > glaciers
>> > moved.
>> >
>> > Instead of forcing fanciful Celtic etymologies on Derto:na, Cremo:na,
>> > Vero:na, and the like, I would simply recognize that the pre-Gaulish IE
>> > languages of Cisalpine Gaul, namely Ligurian, Rhaetic, and Venetic,
>> > retained
>> > inherited */o:/ rather than shifting it to */a:/.
>> >
>> >
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> It's self-evident that both Celtic *krem- (ablauting with kram-)
>> 'garlic, onion etc.' (only crim is properly -u-stem) and *krem-
>> 'strong' (whence maybe 'rock') are always competing etymologies. Other
>> PIE roots, like kremannymi's *k'remh2- or cremo's *k(')remH- can of
>> course be taken into consideration as well. All in all, I still find
>> no difficulty in identifying Cremona with garlic or onions because
>> this would fit its territory.
> DGK:
> I can accept 'garlic' or 'onion' as the base of Crema and Cremo:na, but I
> find the 'river' part of the forced Celtic etymology implausible. In what
> sense was the Po the 'Garlic River', and why would such a name only be found
> applied to a town?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Cremona's river was probably not the Po but a branch of the Adda
in ancient times, but this is irrelevant to our question. What matters
is that both the Po (as everybody knows: Bodincus, Padus, Eridanus)
and the Adda (Lexua) did have more than one name (still in the Middle
Age) and accordingly a different name for every stretch from an
important confluence to another one, not to speak of the names of
different branches.
Anyway, I recall the point of departure of our discussion: If You
dislike the garlic-etymology You can choose the rock one or anything
Pre-Latin You prefer, the point is anyway on the origin of -o:na.
> DGK:
> And I see no connection with the Graian Alps, where 'Yoke of the Hanger' (a
> mythical mountain-raiser?) makes more sense.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You see no connection and there's no need to see such a
connection. Even Cremella (Lecco) and Cremia (Como) have *krem- in
other meanings than 'garlic' or 'onion'. I had initially written no
etymology for *krem- in Cremo:na because it wasn't relevant (apart
from its Pre-Latin affiliation); Patrick Cuadrado asked for it and I
reported Patrizia de Bernardo's proposal (just for Cremona, not for
Cremo or other places!).
We can amusingly further discuss whether all occurrences of
/krem-/ can be assigned to the same etymon or to different homophones,
but it's pointless to our present purpose.
>
>> As for Derto:na, my own etymology *Dher-to-pon-ah2 'slowly river'
>> would refer to the moor of the Scrivia river in the plain between
>> Arquata and Tortona.
> DGK:
> So why was the RIVER not called that?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I've never stated that the river wasn't called that. Nobody can
assert that it wasn't called that. My hypothesis implies that it was
indeed so named.
Facts are that Derto:na is the name of the town's territory (not
simply of the town) and that this territory was a big marsh formed the
Scrivia river.
If Scrivia is from *skrei- 'curve', such an etymology applies very
aptly to its upper course, much less to the plain North of Arquata.
So, why not a different name for this section of the river?
>
>> Vero:na < *Wei-ro-pon-ah2 'curved river' lies exactly on the great
>> curve of the Adige.
> DGK:
> So why was the RIVER not called that?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
If You repeat the question, it becomes a more general question. Do
You admit that rivers can have had more names than today (I think You
do), therefore that these names can refer to different sections of the
river - corresponding to territorial units - and survive as
territorial names when one river-name wins over the other ones for the
same river?
>
>> Inherited *-o:na: did shift to *-a:na: in non-praedial
>> -ana-place-names (e.g. Brutana)
> DGK:
> Good. Since we know there was an inherited *-o:na: (becoming Gaulish
> *-a:na:), there is no problem assigning o:na:-names to the pre-Gaulish IE
> languages.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
There's never any problem in assigning regular outputs to their
possible linguistic affiliations. Problems raise after that. First of
all, competing assignments cause the debate to remain unsolved.
Secondly, co-occurrence of different strata in one and the same
territory implies the question of a possible chronological sequence.
Let's start with the second problem. You like stratifications. In
order to prove a stratification, You have to solve the first problem
in favour of the co-occurrence solution. The it comes to chronological
priority. I think You assume Ligurian precedes Celtic, maybe because
You assign everything Celtic to the Gaulish immigrations about the
middle of the I. millennium BCE and maybe also because You infer that,
since Ligurian appear to have disappeared all over Europe before than
Continental Celtic in turn disappeared, it must have also preceded as
to its starting point (just as if strata were persons of different
generations), but since You usually recognize Ligurian names by their
absence of Celtic features (sometimes You postulate Gaulish remaking
of Ligurian names, but all instances can be reversed as to
chronological succession) You have to give a better proof of the
chronological priority of the allegedly non-Celtic Ligurian stratum.
(As for me, I've tried to argue in favour of direct lineage from PIE
to Gaulish in situ and this would at least exclude chronological
seriority of Celtic).
The first problem cannot be solved because Your theory isn't
falsifiable. Since You are free to assign to Celtic everything that
anywhere doesn't fit in Your (and Kretschmer's and d'Arbois' and so
on) Ligurian, please tell me what on Earth could even theoretically
convince You that You may be wrong.