2012/6/8, dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 2012-06-07 03:19, dgkilday57 pisze:
>>
>> > 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).
>>
>> Would it include today's northeastern Poland and the River Drwe,ca <
>> *drUvoNtja, one of Torsten's favourites? (no trace of *dreu- in
>> Balto-Slavic, and absence of Grimm's Law excludes a Germanic
>> intermediary).
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drw%C4%99ca
>
> It looks that way. Artemidorus did say that the Ligurians once ranged all
> the way to the Northern Ocean. Earlier I attributed this remark to
> misunderstanding on A.'s part of how far north Worms-am-Rhein is, but
> perhaps he was spot on.
>
> DGK
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
So Your Ligurian is, like d'Arbois', Dottin's, Philipon's and
Kretschmer's, an IE Old European stratum like Pokorny's
Veneto-Illyrian.
As I've many times pointed out, I'm find such hypotheses very
attractive. I constantly try to fit them all in a maximal frame; I'm a
kind of a collectionist of these theories.
I've noticed that I can found new hypothesis in this perspective
simply out of one and the same language: 1) In the territory and
linguistic documentation of language X (of IE descent), I look for an
ethnonym Y without any linguistic affiliation; 2) I choose a
place-name that can be geographically associated with this ethnonym;
3) I take into consideration the PIE etymology (if any) of this
place-name; 4) I try to find if it can be modified (especially with
regard to ablaut) in order to have a similar etymology, maybe from the
same root and in any case a sufficiently straightforward one, but with
a different diachronic phonology (Y) as opposed to the one of the
locally attested language X; 5) I apply diachronic phonology Y to
every name of X I can; 6) the area of the names with which I've
succeedingly applied diachronic phonology Y is identified with the
ancient territory of the linguistic stratum named after the ethnonym
Y. In X You can read 'Celtic', 'Germanic', 'Baltic', 'Slavic',
'Greek', 'Armenian' and so on; in Y You can read 'Sorothaptic',
'Latial-Ausonian'/'Palaeo-Umbrian', 'Pelasgian', 'psi-Greek',
'Themematic', 'Greltic' and so on.
What I have to add in order to get a complete picture is to
examine the opposite possibility, a minimal amount of language
substitutions. (Alinei's Continuity is in no way minimalist on this
point, because it takes Pre-Latin languages as superstrata, therefore
implying a double language superposition - their arrival and their
death). There's a limit beyond which one's Reductionism is patently
falsified (e.g. in the case one should try to deny Illyrian or
Thracian or Continental Celtic); before that very boundary, I think
it's our duty to find out the minimalist approach. It doesn't mean
it's right; it suffices that it be both possible and extreme. I can
myself construct the opposite extreme, applying to each name of X the
method I've just exposed.