Re: frisgo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Old French <fregon>, now <fragon> 'petit houx, houx-frelon, pungitopo, butcher's broom, knee-holly, Ruscus aculeatus', along with Norman <frégon>, Poitevin <fringon>, and dialectal forms in Charente [frego:], Vienne [frgo:], and Haute-Vienne [fre^gú, fre.ge:], continues Gallo-Latin <frisgo(:)> attested in glosses. Another gloss <brisco> (for *brisgo:?) is represented by Limousin <bregou>, in Basses-Alpes [bre.gu:], in Charente again [brigu:]. A protoform *grisgo: is indicated by <grigon> along the Soudre (North Gironde), [gri:gu:] in Gironde, and [grisku:n] in Les Landes.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that what we have here is a very important isogloss indicating the linguistic situation in Gaul before its conquest by the Gauls. If the protoform of <fregon> and the rest involved *gWHris-, we expect Celtic to have *gris-, Ligurian to have *bris-, and *fris- is presumably Venetic. The attestations of *bris- do indeed occur in Liguria Transalpina, and those of *gris- are consistent with Gallicization proceeding from the southwest.
> > >
> > > What possible reason is there to assume an unknown *gWHris- instead of the widely-seen form for root/branch/plant that was discussed earlier (such as * wrizga: > * gW- > gwrysg = branch W; * wrizga: > * wirzga: > virga = rod/shoot/twig L; etc.)?
> > >
> > > If simply Celtic, in some dia./lng. w- > v- (borrowed as either f or b , just as the sounds in Osc.-Umb. >> Latin), and in others (sim. to Welsh above) w- > gW- (borrowed as g-). Only one group of languages is needed; one already known and w speakers known to have lived there: Celtic.
> >
> > There's also brisgean = silver-weed, brisgein = white tansy Gael; which is more ev. than you have for any C/V/Ligurian tri-borrowing.
>
> As usual, you ignore semantics in order to lump unrelated words together. As most of its names imply, Ruscus aculeatus is a prickly shrub, not a 'rod' or a 'silver weed'.

You have, for no reason, assumed that one language could have loanwords from Celtic, Ligurian, and Venetic for one plant, varying only in the first C-. That requires that the lngs. were already and still very similar, that these loans were all borrowed at the same time (so the other C/V wouldn't change regularly in the interim), etc.; this is much, much more unlikely than my expl.


You seem to be able to recognize incompetence in others, but you are obviously extremely incompetent. You have been corrected my many others, and even recently had to retract most of your specific theories about loans. I have done nothing odd or wrong in my expl. for this word. You need to realize that not everything you think is automatically right, and if you hear another expl. you need to once again retract your theories and attempt to become a better linguist.