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

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

>
> 2012/6/7, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > 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'))

I used to agree with Lig. *Genowa: based on the earliest Greek form, but I no longer find it necessary, and I believe I can answer your other objections in a few days (why Gen. Zena, etc.).

> > 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]

Greek <ge'ranos> 'crane' corresponds to Celtic *garano-, so first-syllable stress does not block Joseph's Law. On this model we should expect *ge'nabo- > Celt. +ganabo-. The stress probably WAS there, because the /a/ in this place-name is short.

Irish <ben> does not reflect the root-noun *gWenh2 (which does appear as <be'>, usually neuter; cf. Gmc. 'wife'). Ir. <ben> continues Celt. *bena: which, if it was formed like the Greek nom. sg. <gune':>, reflects oxytone *gWen-e'h2. But no conclusions can be drawn about Joseph's Law from this noun, which is subject to analogical levelling (e.g. Gaul. gen. pl. <bnanom>, <mnanom> with extra -n- from acc. pl. *bnas, <mnas>). That is, the vowel of <ben>, IF it was altered to /a/ by J.'s Law, COULD have been restored by the vowel of the neuter <be'>. The same goes for <-bena> in Gaul. personal names. This business of conditions for J.'s Law might well be discussed separately from our feud.

DGK