Re: Cremona (was: Ligurian Barga and */p/; was: Ligurian)

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

>
> 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.

First, regarding the Po, I know of no evidence that natives ever called it Eridanus. That was the poetic name of a mythical river. What we do know is that Ligurians called the upper part of it Bodegkos/Bodincus, and the lower part was called Padus. What this means is that Ligurians reached the river from the west and named it, and some non-Ligurian group reached the river from the east and named it something else, and subsequent groups used the existing non-Ligurian name.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND for asserting that every stretch of a river had a different name. In fact, such an assumption flies in the face of your homogenist model. You envision uniform PIE-speakers settling (or being divinely created) over a very large area, and since rivers serve as routes for travel, there is no basis whatever for a uniform stratum of speakers to assign multiple names. The only reason for multiple naming is ethnolinguistic heterogeneity, which your model denies for pre-Roman times, although you are willing to admit enclaves of conservatism to explain Porcobera and the Plinii. Thus your model should yield only such variants as the Duero/Douro. It cannot account for Bodincus/Padus and the like.

> > 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.

Agreed.

> >> 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?

Because rivers are used for travel, and giving rivers PROPER names is (to my knowledge) a linguistic universal. Ask yourself why ANYTHING has a proper name. Instead of saying "Let's paddle up the fishy river to the shining river to the swampy river to the sandy river to the pebbly river to the birchy river to the waterfally river, then portage over to the other waterfally river and paddle down to the oaky river to the beechy river to the twisty river to the bitter river to the broad river to the sea", IE-speakers could say "Let's paddle up the Albantia to the waterfall, portage over to the Brigantia, and paddle down to the sea". Done!

> >> 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?

The only reason to admit that would be to admit greater ethnolinguistic heterogeneity then than now, which again your model denies. And it is quite remarkable that 3 for 3 of your -o:na-names involve NO EVIDENCE that the rivers were EVER called that.

> >> 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.

Alternative etymologies based on REAL Celtic, not your Frankensteinian construction involving body parts from other languages, in short Franken-Celtic.

DGK