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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> 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 kÑŠpÑŠ (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-

You are conflating two roots, *keuh{x}p- 'hollow, hole, cup, etc.' and *keuph1- 'pile, heap, hill, etc.' (Av. <kaofo:> 'mountain'). Lat. <cuppa> against <cu:pa> is to be explained like <Juppiter> from the voc. sg. *Ju:-piter, as a (Sabino-Latin) dialectism.

> > 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'))

Not necessarily; we have *-a:vo- outside of Celtic. No compelling need for vr.ddhi.

> > 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]

What clear parallels do you have of Lindemann's anlaut actually occurring in Celtic?

DGK