From: dgkilday57
Message: 69947
Date: 2012-08-07
>The other example I know of 'other land' is Alessio's explanation of <Etru:ria> by haplology from Paleo-Umbrian *Etro-rous-ja: and certainly Etruscans and Umbrians spoke different languages. And the only justification I know of for the Allobroges to self-identify as 'Otherlanders' is the one I have given.
> 2012/8/4, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> (...)
> > With characteristic modesty, I submit that Ligurian substrate theory may be
> > capable of explaining the voiced onset of <gladius>, <glo:ria>, and the West
> > Romance *gattu- 'cat' which largely prevailed outside of central Gaul. My
> > working hypothesis is that Gallia Propria was conquered by P-Celts,
> > originating in N Iberia, who passed through Aquitania and poured across the
> > Garonne in search of greener pastures. The pre-Celtic IE-speakers in S and
> > SE Gaul were principally Ligures; those in NW Gaul were principally Veneti.
> > To the north, the Belgae had superposed themselves upon the Veneti and
> > Ligures. The eastern Belgae in NE Gaul were Gallicized in pre-Roman times;
> > the western Belgae in Belgica Propria were not.
> >
> > The immediate pre-Latin substrate in most of northern Italy was Gaulish, but
> > this language had not been established here as long as it had been in
> > central Gaul. Milan itself was established by Gauls, but the pre-Gaulish
> > substrate in NW Italy was Ligurian. The characteristic Lig. suffix *-asca:
> > is frequent in the French departments east of the Rhône as well, indicating
> > that here too Ligures preceded Gauls. The notice by Livy (5:34) makes the
> > Bituriges the de facto leaders of the expanding Gauls during the reign of
> > Tarquinius Priscus (early 6th cent. BCE). That is, Bourges was the
> > effective capital of Gaul at the time, and this area had presumably been
> > Gallicized in the 7th cent. or earlier. But east of the Rhône, Ligures kept
> > their identity for several more centuries, and Gaulish settlement occurred
> > at a much slower pace. Even today, Provence is a notoriously poor part of
> > France, and incoming Gaulish settlers would be likely to grab lands west of
> > the Rhône if they could. Indeed, the Provençal Gaulish tribal name
> > Allobroges 'Otherlanders' suggests that for a considerable time most Gauls
> > regarded Provence as 'the other land' across the Rhône, inhabited by poor
> > and backward Ligures rather than Gauls.
>
> *Bhr.: or simply 'the other land', without any reference to language
> > Nevertheless Gaulish settlers didWhat else is there? Mind-beams from flying saucers? The only real objection you have is absence of [kH] in Milanese, and all that means is that my preliminary suggestion regarding the interlinguistic borrowing mechanism is over-simplified. The words with /k/ ~ /k/ need not have gone directly from French to Milanese.
> > trickle in to create a new tribe, the Allobroges, defined by geography
> > instead of ancestry.
> >
> > It is reasonable to suppose that here, to the west and south of the western
> > Alps, Ligurian exerted a significant influence on the local Gaulish, which
> > we might term Liguro-Gallic, just as we use the term Gallo-Latin to denote
> > the Latin which was significantly influenced by Gaulish. Now, French
> > <cabaret> and <cabriolet> (obviously not inherited the usual way from Latin)
> > have been borrowed into Milanese as <gabaré> and <gabriolé>. French is
> > noted for allowing very little aspiration with word-initial tenues. I
> > hypothesize that the borrowing of Fr. /k/ as Milan. /g/ in word-initial
> > position reflects a phonetic discrepancy going back to pre-Roman times.
>
> *Bhr.: How do You explain <gabaré> and <gabriolé>? They cannot have
> been borrowed before the Romans; Your supposed /k/ > /g/ cannot have
> survived till modern times, because every other French word and name
> with /k/ has /k/ in Milanese and this latter language doesn't show
> [kH], so <gabaré> and <gabriolé> can neither have their /g/ by
> interlinguistic phonology nor by tradition
> > That is, central Gaulish dialects, which due to rapid conquest had undergoneThis is a working hypothesis, as clearly labeled above. Sheesh.
> > very little Ligurian (or Venetic) influence, allowed very little aspiration
> > with word-initial tenues, particularly /k/. But Ligurian allowed
> > considerable aspiration here, initial /k/ being sounded as [kH],
>
> *Bhr.: Independent evidence required, please.
> Exstant Celtic languages exhibit word-initial [kH] for /k/ (note thatExtant Celtic languages are Insular, and attested some 2400 years after the presumed borrowings from Gaulish to Ligurian. I am aware of the Gemse-phenomenon (involving _Upper_ German), so perhaps my theory can find an improved mechanism in this direction.
> Cymry are *Kom-mroges, not *Allo-); Cisalpine and Alpine Romance /k/
> is rendered by /g/ by Germans, cf. Alamannic Goms (Oberwallis) <
> Franco-Provençal *Kontsi < Lat. *Conca), Göschenen = Casnotta
> > so thatI do not share your enthusiasm for such contrivances. I am reminded of Meringer's explanation of 'plough' as inherited Germanic. It might look formally plausible but it fails to fit the chronological and geographical data.
> > Gaul. /k/, a pure [k] even initially, sounded more like /g/ than /k/ to
> > Ligurian ears. Thus when the Ligures east of the Rhône and south of the
> > Alps borrowed words from the first wave of Gaulish settlers, *k- became *g-,
> > but of course native Ligurian words retained *k- (pronounced [kH-]). As
> > more Gauls settled among these Ligures, effecting a slow conquest over
> > several generations, their own Gaulish became Liguricized as Liguro-Gallic,
> > with *k- in words corresponding to those in which Ligures had maintained
> > native *k-, but *g- in words which Ligures had borrowed from Gaulish words
> > with *k-.
> >
> > With this explanatory mechanism, I can dispense with my earlier makeshift,
> > Late Greek *káttos as an intermediary between (Gallo-)Latin <cattus> and
> > WRom *gattu-. Instead, I presume that *kattos m. and *katta: f. 'cat',
> > whatever their ultimate source, were established in central Gaul, and
> > introduced to Ligurian (and Liguro-Gallic) as *gattos and *gatta:, whence
> > (several centuries later) Vulgar Latin *gattus and *gatta, at home in
> > Provence, and otherwise spreading from NW Italy (perhaps on Genovese ships
> > for rodent control), but not overcoming the /k/-forms entrenched in central
> > Gaul. Late Latin <cattus> and <catta> in this view were borrowed (as
> > literary terms) from central Gallo-Latin, and the epicene usage in Baruch
> > 6:21 might not be genuinely archaic, but simply analogical after the
> > behavior of <damma> 'fallow deer'. (...)
>
> *Bhr.: Gamkrelidze - Ivanov 1984: 599-601 = 1995: I 513-515 analyze
> Pokorny's *kat-o- 'young animal' (1959: 534) as *k'hh3-t-Ho-s (=
> traditional *k'h3-t-Hos) and Trumper 2001: 233-234 (John Bassett
> Trumper, "Frammenti di un "Vocabolario Calabro": nuove ricerche
> lessico-semantiche per un'inchiesta regionale", in "La dialettologia
> oggi fra tradizione e nuove metodologie" - Atti del Convegno
> Internazionale Pisa 10-12 Fabbraio 2000, a cura di Alberto Zamboni,
> Patrizia Del Puente, Maria Teresa Vigolo, Pisa: Edizioni ETS, XIII,
> 531 p., pp. 207-241) proposes 'acute, clever" from âk'eh3(y)-
> 'sharpen' (Pokorny 1959: 541-542, LIV2 319-320).
> Under these assumptions, cattus and Celtic *kattos are from
> *k'h3-t-wo-s resp. *k'h3-t-nó-s; Germanic *kattus, *kattŠcan be from
> PIE *k'h3-ot-nú-s, *k'h3-ot-wáh2/4; Late Latin gattus would then be
> Celtic *ga:ttos < PIE *k'h3-o:t-nó-s