From: dgkilday57
Message: 69845
Date: 2012-06-21
>Your memory is better than mine. I had forgotten the absurd lengths to which Harold went in order to Celticize Homer and Hellas. Now that you have explained your procedure in detail, I see that you construct Celtic etymologies only on "Celtic soil", so a better comparison is with Werner Guth, who demands only Germanic etymologies on "Germanic soil" (and indeed discards Celtic material).
> 2012/6/12, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > 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 CelticI consider myself a "Celtic purist", certainly not an Anti-Celticist! That is, I oppose the Frankensteinian process of grafting non-Celtic members onto a Celtic body in order to level everything on "Celtic soil" to one stratum.
> 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)