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

2012/6/21, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

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

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Frankensteinianism - in itself neither good nor bad as far as
Linguistics is concerned - emerges only in Your model and in every
Vorsprungsmodell ("PIE split into X units and this units spread and
gave origin to more subunits and so on"). In my
Groszindogermanische(n) Hypothese - as it has been named - the
succession of events is: PIE (first) spread and (subsequently) split
into, say, 500 (still PIE) SUBunits that - much later - were more
(Celts) or less (Orobians) systematically reshaped, on long distances,
into secondary units = aggregations of subunits, just like Germany is
the secondary, more or less tight aggregation of a part of smaller
Germanic tribes.
Yes, Celtic unity, far from being a single detachment of PIE unity,
is here reconstructed as an (apparently mostly phonological)
assemblement of ca. 100 (out of 500) PIE tribes