2012/6/12, dgkilday57 <
dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 2012/6/6, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
>> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> >> (...) Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
>> >> together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
>> >> with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
>> >> form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
>> >> Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
>> >> and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
>> >> coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
>> >> is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
>> >> are trying to do.
>>
>> > DGK:
>> > These "phases" overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE
>> > Ligurian
>> > long after Kretschmer's paper (which is hardly a set of "happy
>> > guesses"),
>> > and Rhy^s was arguing for Celticism even before Kretschmer's paper. I
>> > would
>> > say there are three schools of thought here. I belong to Kretschmer's,
>> > and
>> > you belong to Rhy^s's.
>> >
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> Yes, sure. With "guesses" I meant something neutral: one realizes
>> (or proposes) that language X is IE, but has then to discover the
>> detalis of its diachronic phonology; he has to start with equations
>> where, for instance, vocalism can either represent the direct
>> evolution of one and the same vowel or exhibit the direct evolution of
>> a different ablaut grade: just like Aryan /a/ in closed syllable vs.
>> Greek /o/ can be either PIE */e/ or */o/, Ligurian vowels can be
>> directly equated with their matches in the corresponding words from
>> other IE languages (this is the guess) but can also represent, as an
>> alternative, a different ablaut grade (this is a guess as well).
>> In the Celtic Hypothesis, the only - great - guess is the
>> hypothesis itself; all the rest are corollaries (evaluation of vowels
>> included).
> DGK:
> What precisely is your version of "the Celtic Hypothesis"?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
My theoretical frame is as follows:
1) we don't know Prehistory, therefore we construct models;
2) all models can be comprised between two extreme versions - a
maximum and a minimum of stratifications;
3) both extremes must be just a step before unbelievability, i.e.
they have to be proven correct;
4) I've almost left any hope to find the maximal point of
stratificatonism: I'm collecting more and more theories (Yours is one
of them) and try to keep them together;
5) the opposite extreme - the minimal point of stratificationism - is
much easier to be found: Almost only historically attested language
substitutions have taken place;
6) between these extreme points, I'm looking for a provisional model
with the minimal amount of pre-historical postulations (substrates)
which explain linguistic evidence better than scenario n° 5 does (for
instance, I believe that an unattested IE substrate can indeed explain
a certain amount of North African place-names better than
Hamito-Semitic etymologies - although in itself perfectly regular -
can do; maybe something converse would be possible in Crete with
Semitic etymologies prevailing over IE ones, I can't make my mind up);
7) in this 'intermediate' (but inclining to Minimalism) model, almost
every ancient Hamitic or Semitic language can have developed in situ
(with the obvious exceptions of Punic and similar cases), almost every
IE language can have developed in situ and so on (possible boundary
zones: Northern Africa, Low Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia,
Tibet, North-Western China);
8) in this frame, ancient Cisalpine Gaul shows Celtic evidence;
Proper Liguria shows place-names whose interpretations manifestly
don't coincide with any Celtic language, but at the same time are
nearest to Celtic than to any other IE class and, above all, never
compel to admit non-Celtic innovations as better solutions in
opposition to bare conservation of PIE features;
9) the same considerations are applied to every pre-4th c. BCE Celtic area;
10) similar considerations are applied to every IE class - Germanic
(in non-Celtic areas), Slavic (in non-Baltic, non-Germanic,
non-Illyrian, non-Daco-Misian, and non-Thracian areas), Armenian (in
non-Anatolian areas), Tocharian and so on;
11) similar considerations are applied to every language family -
North Caucasian, Kartvelian, Afrasian, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan,
Amerind and so on
> DGK:
> How could one possibly falsify it,
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I twice (e.g. on 2012/5/11, 00:57) wrote:
"(...) If there were non-Celtic inovations,
they would be recognized as such. E.g., a place-name †Medioplo:nom (or
†Mediopla:nom, depending on it final member's etymology) could be
immediately recognized as Venetic or Latin, †Mefioplu:no resp.
†Mefiopla:no as Italic, †Midiaflo:na- as Germanic and so on.
The proof is that, of course, although a regular Celtic etymology
would be possible (for †Medioplo:nom *medio- + *plo- + *(f)ono-, where
*plo- < PIE *kwl(H)-o-, compounded form of *kwlH-ah2 > pala:, with
neognós laryngeal deletion, and *(f)ono- < *pono- 'water'), the risk
of a casual coincidence with real Celtic lexical items (*medio-, pala
and *ono-) would be nevertheless higher in such a three disyllables
analysis than in a straightforward comparison between the entire
tetrasyllable compound *Mediola:non and its potential Venetic match.
Therefore, the etymology of †Medioplo:nom as the Venetic outcome of
PIE *Medhyo-plh1no-m (> Celtic *Mediola:non) is statistically more
probable than the analysis of †Medioplo:nom as the Celtic output of
PIE *Medhyo-kwlHo-pono-."
(I am still waiting to learn how could one possibly falsify You own theory.)
> DGK:
> when you have licensed yourself /p/-retention as an
> archaic Celticism, and all other traditionally non-Celtic features as
> regional Celticisms?
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
We all agree that Celtic, like every IE language, is a transformation
of Indo-European (or PIE, where "P" simply means 'Prehistorical';
ultimately, Celtic is - like every IE language - a transformation of
Proto-Indo-European or "PIE" as well).
"Traditionally non-Celtic features" must therefore be distinguished
into a) presence of non-Celtic innovations and b) absence of Celtic
innovations. An IE language with b but not a is an intermediate stage
between PIE and Celtic, and since it would have never reached full
Celtic status, we can label it as follows: An IE language which shows
no innovations would be PIE itself; an IE language which shows some
innovations can, if the complex of these innovations recurs only in
Celtic, be labeled as archaic Celtic (the innovations can individually
occur in other IE classes as well, but if they as a whole are matched
only by Celtic, this latter is the only relevant class).
If, on the contrary, the language under examinations shows
innovations of type a), then it is definitely non-Celtic and a name
for its own is necessary.
You believe Ligurian is a) (presence of non-Celtic innovations), I
believe it's b) (absence of some Celtic innovations). We both agree
that Ligurian lacked some Celtic innovations and that it had some
innovations as against PIE; we also agree that some of these
innovations where identical with Celtic innovations. I'm satisfied
with such innovations, You recognize other, non-Celtic ones. So please
stop returning on "Celtic" about my theory (where "Celtic" simply
stands for "Late IE, with a number of innovations, where these
innovations are always isoglosses with Celtic languages - alone or
with other IE languages too - but don't complete the whole inventory
of Celtic innovations"; don't You like "Celtic" in this sense? You can
choose other names, e.g. "Western-Central Late IE"). The crucial point
is that You recognize other innovations and that these innovations are
clearly non-Celtic: You have to demonstrate (not just propose) them, I
can try to criticize Your demonstrations.
Another question is slightly different: I maintain that Celts are
indigenous (= they represent the local transformation of PIE) in
Central and Western Europe, including Liguria (in its proper and wider
sense). In this case I have to present demonstrations and You can try
to criticize them.
It could even happen that You succeed in demonstrating that Ligurian
had clearly non-Celtic innovations and I succeed in demonstrating that
Celts were indigenous in Liguria. There would be no contradiction: It
would mean that Ligurians were latecomers. (That Transalpine Gauls did
invade Cisalpine Gaul in Late Bronze or Early Iron Age is irrelevant:
A stratification IE > Celts, then Ligurians, than Gauls would be
perfeclty possible.)
> DGK:
> I am reminded of this "Harold" character on sci.lang
> who etymologized almost all European river-names as Celtic.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
A character who writes "Homer, whose real name is Kimer which means
he is a Cimmerian Celt" or "Ellas-Gallas, the name for Greece" is for
You the same as one who, as in my case, has published a monograph on
Valtline with 60,000 PIE reconstructed forms...
I thought You and I were more similar to each other than to Harold,
but if You feel as You have written I can only conclude that You have
a tendency to put whoever disagrees with You in a melting pot of
Pan-celticists.
I have no special attraction for Celts. Wherever I propose Celtic
etymologies, a Celtic presence has already and independently been
demonstrated (note that this doesn't hold true for Ligurians in Your
case).
My hypothesis is much more general; if we were discussing about
Slavs, I'd have been proposing Slavonic etymologies, if about
Thracians - Thracian etymologies and so on.
Even outside Indo-European: if we were discussing about Arabia, I'd
have been proposing Semitic etymologies. It's not my fault if we are
discussing about Cisalpine Gaul; should I propose, say, an Indo-Aryan
stratum in Cisalpine Gaul (as someone has done), I could give the
impression of being excessively favourable to Indo-Aryans, but, since
Celts in Cisalpine Gaul are attested beyond any doubt, the only
questions here are about their arrival and the existence of other, in
any case less evident strata beside them.
Your (and Others') non-Celtic Ligurians are almost entirely carved
out of linguistic materials whose evidence emerges in territories
that, immediately prior to the Roman Conquest, were inhabited by
Celtic-speaking peoples (therefore You can neutralize every critique
by stating that any uncontroversial Celtic element is to be ascribed
to Celtic invaders). That means that You are trying to recognize
non-Celtic traces in Celtic territories, i.e. to unmasque Non-Celts
between Celts. It's not me who am Pan-celticist; it's rather You who
are Anti-Celticist (this is perfectly admissible; just please leave
away any reproach of Pan-celticism against me)
>
>> >> > DGK:
>> >> > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the
>> >> > assimilation
>> >> > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-,
>> >> > *pr.kWeh2-
>> >> > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by
>> >> > Celtic.
>> >> > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese
>> >> > <olca>.
>> >> > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense),
>> >> > "Illyrian"
>> >> > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a
>> >> > Q-Illyrian
>> >> > language spoken in Rhaetia.
>> >>
>> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> >> This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
>> >> from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
>> >> Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
>> >> formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
>> >> *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
>> >> *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
>> >> Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
>> >> to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
>> >> hypercorrect reaction)
>>
>> > DGK:
>> > Latin <quercus> shows that the assimilation preceded delabialization of
>> > *kW
>> > before *u. The length presumably comes from the same place as in Lat.
>> > <portu:nus>, etc.: denominal adjectival formations in *-h2no- and
>> > *-h2ni-.
>> >
>> > I accept your reasoning about Piem. <olca>, and I will stop citing it
>> > in
>> > this connection, but we still have Trent. <porca>.
>> >
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> In Trentine <porca>, <c> = [k], as long as it's before
>> non-stressed /a/, can continue both Latin (and Pre-Latin) /k/ and
>> /kw/.
>> If it were from */k/, it would be a very strange Illyrian word,
>> since it would exhibit IE short /o/ (not /a/) but satem treatment
>> (/k/) of the labio-velar */kw/, unless You maintain PIE syllabic /r/
>> has become /or/ (open [É"]) as in Italic instead of /ri/ as in
>> Albanian.
>> If it were from */kw/, it would be a conservative IE form (*porkwa:)
> DGK:
> Albanian is irrelevant to Illyrian, since Durante showed that A. cannot be
> descended from I. Krahe regarded */or/ and */ol/ as pre-cons. reflexes of
> syllabic *r. and *l., and we have <-ikkos> '-horse' in Tarentine Greek
> personal names, thus Messapic (and presumably Q-Ill.) *k^w > */kk/; since
> onomastic and other evidence shows that Ill. is a centum lg., there is no
> problem with *pr.kWah2 > Q-Ill. *porkka: > Rhaetic *porka(:).
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
there isn't any more problem with *porkWah2 > Late IE *porkwa:,
assumed into Alpine Latin as *porqua > Trentine porca.
In the economy of our discussion, Trentine porca doesn't imply any
other substrate beside Venetic or Late IE pockets
>> >> > DGK:
>> >> > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses
>> >> > between
>> >> > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in
>> >> > the
>> >> > area
>> >> > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical
>> >> > isoglosses
>> >> > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about
>> >> > interpreting
>> >> > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological
>> >> > isoglosses
>> >> > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to
>> >> > regard
>> >> > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are
>> >> > driving
>> >> > at.
>> >> >
>> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> >>
>> >> No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
>> >> Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
>> >> for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking Matasović for the Golden
>> >> Book
>> >> of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović could be
>> >> Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
>> >> even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
>> >> definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
>> >> criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
>> >> Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
>> >> doesn't occur in Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
>> >> it's useless to continue
>>
>> > DGK:
>> > All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted
>> > (as
>> > most Celtologists do!) any more.
>> >
>>
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>>
>> Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as a Celtic
>> language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid misunderstandings,
>> it's so difficult to avoid them)
> DGK:
> I think "think" or something dropped out of the question. Yes, I think most
> Celtologists today take for granted the assignment of Lepontic to Celtic.
> To his credit, Matasovic' proceeds with caution, observing the flimsiness of
> basing linguistic assignments entirely upon personal names.
>
> DGK
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
(I first wanted to write "Do You think", then I added "don't You?"
without deleting initial "Do" and "think" dropped out; I beg Your
pardon)