From: dgkilday57
Message: 69877
Date: 2012-06-26
>Your methodology is BEYOND unfalsifiable. Not only can you invent a Celtic etymology for ANY modern form (as indeed you boasted early in the discussion), but you have tacked on conservative /p/-retaining enclaves for Porcobera and the Plinii (and any other inconvenient /p/, /o:/, or what-have-you). How could such a scheme even CONCEIVABLY fail? (And on the other side of the coin, of what possible scientific value is it?)
> 2012/6/20, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> >> >> 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?
>
> > DGK:
> > 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.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>
> I've jut cited three examples for areal reasons. If You desire the
> founding material, it's constituted by plenty of /-o:ne/-RIVER-names
> (sometimes in correspondence with -ate-ford names on the same rivers,
> like Vellone [Varese] < *welno-ponos 'good water' by Velate <
> *welno-h1ah2tu-s, Caldone [Lecco] < *kah2udo-pono-s 'posterior water'
> by Acquate < Coade < *kah2udo-h1yah2tu-s)