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

2012/6/26, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

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

> DGK:
> 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?)

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

I've already written it, three times indeed (do You remember
*Mefiopla:no-?) I think it suffices; You have never replied.
I also note You have never really answered to my objections about
Your unfalsifiability (what You wrote - "real Celtic etymologies" - is
by Yourself classified as Gaulish superstrate and therefore cannot
work as possible falsification; it's You who destroy its value).
I simply discuss about possible non-Celtic innovations (maybe this is
the tenth time is undeline it, apparently without any success). You
propose them, I criticize them and You attack everything else (ablaut
etc.). This is the end of the story. You are too much in love with
Your respectable theories, You never concedes other possibilities, no
matter if they are correct. You have Your stratificationist model in
mind and nobody can even defend alternative views, so this discussion
has - since long - no more sense. Please consider Yourself and Your
enormous Ego the absolute and cosmic Winner of this useless time-waste
and then go on crying with Pope-like Infallibility Your dogmata.
I don't care You accept my views. I've written some critical notes,
You don't accept and this is enough. I hope I'll never have to discuss
again with You.

>
> Celtic etymologies should only be postulated under compelling evidence. We
> have Naro:na in Dalmatia, Scardo:na in Liburnia, and Flano:na in Istria
> (also the river Formio:, obviously Venetic). Skardon (Polyb.) against
> Scordus (Liv.) shows Illyrian against Venetic vocalism (cf. Lith. <skardu`s>
> 'steep'). Hence both Venetic and Illyrian (presumably along with Rhaetic)
> had -o:na(:) as a place-name suffix, and there is no need whatsoever to
> concoct vanished Celtic river-names in -o:na: < *-o-ponah2, unless you
> regard this whole business as a mere parlor game.
>
> DGK

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Such a reasoning would consider Alaska a Ligurian name