Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tied] Ligurian Barga and */p/ (was: Ligurian)

Expand Messages
  • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
    ... Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: If You feel more satisfied with generalization of nominative lengthened grade, we can go further in this discussion. I agree that
    Message 1 of 27 , May 19, 2012
      2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
      >
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      >> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
      >>
      >> > DGK:
      >> > > You are now free to argue
      >> > > that Barzio and Barziago can be Celtic in origin from the same
      >> > > set.-root,
      >> > > but OIr <bairt> no longer provides compelling evidence for a Celtic
      >> > > /o:/-grade in the Barg- place-names.
      >> > > You can append as many laryngeals as
      >> > > you like to *bHr.g^H- and still get Celt. *brig-.
      >> >
      >> > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
      >> > We are still back at my message of 2012/5/12, 21:36. What about "OIr.
      >> > alt -o-, n. 'joint, articulation, state' : Gk. péplos, laryngealless
      >> > (does it exist?) 3. √*pel- (Pokorny 802-803, Mallory - Adams 1997:
      >> > 63)? Matasović's *pol-to- (121) implies a loan from Germanic, but
      >> > *po:l-to-m would be regular."
      >> > Anders <ollga_loudec@> wrote (2012/5/12, 23:50) "Sure,
      >> > this is a possible etymology. The meaning of *pel- seems to be 'to
      >> > fold', from which 'joint, articulation' is a plausible development.
      >> > But the etymology is hardly inevitable." Do You want still more? Then
      >> > I ask You to provide, please, evidence for the development */o:rC/ >
      >> > /orC/. I repeat that every instance of such development can per
      >> > definitionem be analysed as PIE normal short */orC/, so a clear
      >> > counterexample is virtually impossible.
      >> DGK:
      >> If Matasovic' is correct in deriving Celt. *barro- 'point, top' by
      >> normalizing an old root-noun *bHr.s-, nom. sg. *bHo:rs, he appears to
      >> support your position.
      >
      > Gee, it's fun playing devil's advocate. If M.'s mechanism for deriving
      > *barro- is acceptable, you (Bh.) could dispense with questionably motivated
      > vr.ddhi-formations, and get Celt. *bargo- from another normalized root-noun,
      > *bHr.g^H-/*bHorg^H-, nom. sg. *bHo:rg^H-s (presumably *bHo:rk^s, but
      > speakers would be aware of the "deep structure"). That is, */o:/ would be
      > generalized throughout the paradigm (as in Gmc. 'foot', etc.), and then a
      > new thematic noun *bHo:rg^Ho- would be formed (like the Skt. by-form <pada->
      > 'foot', but with lengthened grade because it had been generalized in the
      > root-noun already). Then, *bHo:rg^Ho- > Paleo-Celtic *bo:rgo- > *ba:rgo- >
      > *bargo- by Osthoff. QED.

      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

      If You feel more satisfied with generalization of nominative
      lengthened grade, we can go further in this discussion. I agree that
      finding a morphological motivation for a lengthened grade is more
      difficult and involves a reater degree of hypotheticity than a simple
      phonological ascertainment. My vr.ddhi hypothesis remains on a general
      level of interplay between morpho-phonology and grammaticalization of
      such notions like quantity (collective) or appurtenance or metonymy
      ('made of') and so on, with reference to the coinage of place-names.
      It will therefore always be questionable, although paradigm ablaut
      levelling - albeit a thoroughly plausible development - is just as
      well scarcely more than a good hypothesis. This is the best we can do
      at present, despite the huge advances in the investigation of PIE
      morphology that have been made since Schindler's and the Erlangen
      School's new approach to the subject.
      What's relevant is that a lengthened grade - of whatever origin,
      let's admit for the sake of the argument from generalization of
      nominative */o:/ - can indeed be postulated. I notice that You are
      inclined to see it as a parallel levelling to the Common Celtic one
      from *bhe:r'gh-s : *bhr.g'h- to generalized *bhr.g'h-s

      > DGK:
      > This is where distribution begins to matter. If Barg-place-names are not
      > commonly found throughout the whole Pan-Celtic realm,

      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
      I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be found in
      Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas, Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias,
      Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La Barge, Les Barges (Central and Western
      France), Barjouville (1203 Barjovilla, Eure-et-Loir), Barjon (1169
      Barjum, Côte-d'Or), Barjac (Ariège), where Bargius is by no way a
      prototypical nomen. They are usually analyzed as occurrences of
      Gaulish *barga > Western French barge 'meule de foin', but especially
      when they are mountain or rock names (Les Barges d'Olonne,
      Sable-d'Olonne, Vendéee; Le Bargy, SW of Cluses, Haute-Savoye) a
      derivative of 'mountain' can be more appropriate, just like in
      properly Ligurian area Mont des Barges (NW of Rabou, Hautes-Alpes),
      Mont de la Barjaude (E/NE of Vérignon, Var)

      > DGK:
      > but a cluster includes
      > Greater Liguria (with the Serchio and Lima valleys, where Pieri extracted
      > *barga), then it would appear (under your Pan-Celtic model) that those
      > ultra-conservative Porcoberan Celts, who were so good at holding their /p/,
      > were also very good at using *Barg- as opposed to mainstream Celts.

      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
      Wait a minute. The only instance of Barg- in reasonable proximity
      to Porcobera Valley is Bargagli (Genoa), in the valley of Bisagno
      River, a place whose inhabitants are by the way most hated by the
      Polceverines or inhabitants of Polcévera < *Purcifera = Porcobera
      Valley.
      Between Bargagli and Barga there are Borzone (< Brezono) and
      Borzonasca (Genoa) < *brig- and Lavagna (Genoa), town and river, <
      *lawo-(p)ania: 'water moor';
      in Cuneo Province there are both Barge in the highest Po Valley and
      Briaglia < *Brigalia nearer to Liguria, in Tanaro Valley;
      in Brescia (< Brixia < *brig-) Province there's Barghe;
      Bargano (Villanova del Sillaro, Lodi) lies between Milano <
      Mediolanum < *Medhyo-plHnom and Cremona < *Kremo-ponah2;
      in the Var Departement we have both Bregançon (Bormes[!], arrond.
      Toulon-sur-Mer, canton Collobrières) and Bargème (814 Bergemulu,
      1026-1064 Bargema; traditionally liked to Berigiema of the Sententia
      Minuciorum!), Bargemon;
      Briançon is both Ligurian (Basses-Alpes, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence;
      Briançonnet Alpes-Maritimes) and Gaulish (Dordogne, Charente-Maritime,
      Indre-et-Loire, Maine-et-Loire, Oise).
      I think this suffices to show that *barg- and *brig- coincide in
      their distribution and that there's no special correlation between
      *barg- and retention of */p/

      > DGK: In
      > fact, all your model does is project the base of Celticity downward, so that
      > /p/-retaining Ligurians are renamed as ultra-conservative /p/-retaining
      > Porcoberan Celts. Now, what scholarly purpose can that serve? "I hereby
      > plant this flag and claim this land for /p/-retaining Celts!"
      >
      > DGK

      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

      I insist for the fourth time that it's just a matter of
      terminology, as very aptly pointed out by Yourself. I wish I had never
      used the term 'Celts' in this case. Let's please call them
      'Conservative Late Indo-Europeans'; what's crucial is whether they
      exhibit any non-Celtic innovation or not. If they don't, we can call
      them 'Ultra-Conservatives' or just how You like; if they do, they earn
      a denomination that can clearly distinguish them from the Celts.
      Another (the other) crucial point is whether all Ancient Ligurians
      retained PIE */p/.
      Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
      */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
      well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
      and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
      are left with */gwh/ > /b/.
      Since we agree that every instance of */p/-drop can be interpreted as
      a Celtic intrusion into formerly Ligurian territory, we can't solve
      the second crucial point.
      In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
      Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
      innovations from PIE;
      */gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
      */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ could be non-Celtic as well, but we agree that it
      could also alternatively represent a characteristic Celtic treatment
      of lengthened grades;
      */p/-drop is disputed and even when it could be evident it may
      reflect Celtic infiltrations (this should in any case suggest to avoid
      a too systematic use of 'Ligurian' as a unitary linguistic label for
      all Ancient Liguria);
      all remaining innovations are shared by Ligurian and Celtic and there
      isn't such a concordance with any other IE linguistic class;
      ergo, Ancient Ligurian is the IE linguistic class most similar to
      Celtic: if */gwh/ > /b/ is true, Ligurian and Celtic are two
      distinguished classes; if it isn't, Ligurian is distinguished from
      Celtic only by a privative opposition (lack - maybe only in restricted
      areas - of certain innovations).
    • Brian M. Scott
      ... [...] ... 1203 seems to be a bit isolated amongst early forms: Morlet gives in addition ca. 1140, ca. 1142,
      Message 2 of 27 , May 19, 2012
        At 8:19:33 PM on Saturday, May 19, 2012, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:

        > 2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

        [...]

        >> DGK:
        >> This is where distribution begins to matter. If
        >> Barg-place-names are not commonly found throughout the
        >> whole Pan-Celtic realm,

        > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
        > I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be
        > found in Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas,
        > Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias, Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La
        > Barge, Les Barges (Central and Western France),
        > Barjouville (1203 Barjovilla, Eure-et-Loir),

        <Barjovilla> 1203 seems to be a bit isolated amongst early
        forms: Morlet gives in addition <Bergevilla> ca. 1140,
        <Bergeinvilla> ca. 1142, <Berjovilla> 1246, and
        <Berjouvilla> 1276 and assigns the name to a Gmc.
        hypocoristic <Bergo>, which looks quite reasonable.

        Brian
      • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
        2012/5/20 Brian M. Scott ... 2012/5/20 Brian M. Scott   At 8:19:33 PM on Saturday, May 19, 2012,
        Message 3 of 27 , May 20, 2012
          2012/5/20 Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>
           

          At 8:19:33 PM on Saturday, May 19, 2012, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:

          > 2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

          [...]



          >> DGK:
          >> This is where distribution begins to matter. If
          >> Barg-place-names are not commonly found throughout the
          >> whole Pan-Celtic realm,

          > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
          > I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be
          > found in Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas,
          > Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias, Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La
          > Barge, Les Barges (Central and Western France),
          > Barjouville (1203 Barjovilla, Eure-et-Loir),

          <Barjovilla> 1203 seems to be a bit isolated amongst early
          forms: Morlet gives in addition <Bergevilla> ca. 1140,
          <Bergeinvilla> ca. 1142, <Berjovilla> 1246, and
          <Berjouvilla> 1276 and assigns the name to a Gmc.
          hypocoristic <Bergo>, which looks quite reasonable.

          Brian


        • dgkilday57
          ... Sorry to hear that. The world already has enough hate. ... I presume you have the same analysis of Derto:na? Otherwise, if the /o:/ did not arise that
          Message 4 of 27 , May 24, 2012
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
            >
            > 2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
            > >
            > > DGK:
            > > This is where distribution begins to matter. If Barg-place-names are not
            > > commonly found throughout the whole Pan-Celtic realm,
            >
            > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
            > I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be found in
            > Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas, Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias,
            > Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La Barge, Les Barges (Central and Western
            > France), Barjouville (1203 Barjovilla, Eure-et-Loir), Barjon (1169
            > Barjum, Côte-d'Or), Barjac (Ariège), where Bargius is by no way a
            > prototypical nomen. They are usually analyzed as occurrences of
            > Gaulish *barga > Western French barge 'meule de foin', but especially
            > when they are mountain or rock names (Les Barges d'Olonne,
            > Sable-d'Olonne, Vendéee; Le Bargy, SW of Cluses, Haute-Savoye) a
            > derivative of 'mountain' can be more appropriate, just like in
            > properly Ligurian area Mont des Barges (NW of Rabou, Hautes-Alpes),
            > Mont de la Barjaude (E/NE of Vérignon, Var)
            >
            > > DGK:
            > > but a cluster includes
            > > Greater Liguria (with the Serchio and Lima valleys, where Pieri extracted
            > > *barga), then it would appear (under your Pan-Celtic model) that those
            > > ultra-conservative Porcoberan Celts, who were so good at holding their /p/,
            > > were also very good at using *Barg- as opposed to mainstream Celts.
            >
            > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
            > Wait a minute. The only instance of Barg- in reasonable proximity
            > to Porcobera Valley is Bargagli (Genoa), in the valley of Bisagno
            > River, a place whose inhabitants are by the way most hated by the
            > Polceverines or inhabitants of Polcévera < *Purcifera = Porcobera
            > Valley.

            Sorry to hear that. The world already has enough hate.

            > Between Bargagli and Barga there are Borzone (< Brezono) and
            > Borzonasca (Genoa) < *brig- and Lavagna (Genoa), town and river, <
            > *lawo-(p)ania: 'water moor';
            > in Cuneo Province there are both Barge in the highest Po Valley and
            > Briaglia < *Brigalia nearer to Liguria, in Tanaro Valley;
            > in Brescia (< Brixia < *brig-) Province there's Barghe;
            > Bargano (Villanova del Sillaro, Lodi) lies between Milano <
            > Mediolanum < *Medhyo-plHnom and Cremona < *Kremo-ponah2;

            I presume you have the same analysis of Derto:na? Otherwise, if the /o:/ did not arise that way, it provides another isogloss between Ligurian and Gaulish.

            > in the Var Departement we have both Bregançon (Bormes[!], arrond.
            > Toulon-sur-Mer, canton Collobrières) and Bargème (814 Bergemulu,
            > 1026-1064 Bargema; traditionally liked to Berigiema of the Sententia
            > Minuciorum!), Bargemon;
            > Briançon is both Ligurian (Basses-Alpes, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence;
            > Briançonnet Alpes-Maritimes) and Gaulish (Dordogne, Charente-Maritime,
            > Indre-et-Loire, Maine-et-Loire, Oise).
            > I think this suffices to show that *barg- and *brig- coincide in
            > their distribution and that there's no special correlation between
            > *barg- and retention of */p/

            Certainly there is no simple correlation, but the fact that *barg- increases in frequency toward the East of Gaul, and again toward the South into the historically Ligurian area, is suggestive.

            > > DGK: In
            > > fact, all your model does is project the base of Celticity downward, so that
            > > /p/-retaining Ligurians are renamed as ultra-conservative /p/-retaining
            > > Porcoberan Celts. Now, what scholarly purpose can that serve? "I hereby
            > > plant this flag and claim this land for /p/-retaining Celts!"
            >
            > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
            >
            > I insist for the fourth time that it's just a matter of
            > terminology, as very aptly pointed out by Yourself. I wish I had never
            > used the term 'Celts' in this case. Let's please call them
            > 'Conservative Late Indo-Europeans'; what's crucial is whether they
            > exhibit any non-Celtic innovation or not. If they don't, we can call
            > them 'Ultra-Conservatives' or just how You like; if they do, they earn
            > a denomination that can clearly distinguish them from the Celts.
            > Another (the other) crucial point is whether all Ancient Ligurians
            > retained PIE */p/.
            > Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
            > */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
            > well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
            > and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
            > are left with */gwh/ > /b/.

            Uh, no, _I_ did not agree that there were only two isoglosses. Those two are simply the most obvious. Another, noted by Petracco Sicardi in "Top. prerom. e rom. della Liguria" (pp. 9-82 of "Top. stor. della Liguria", Genova 1981), is */-dt-/ > /-st-/, occurring in Blustiemelum and Clastidium. P.S. (p. 39) derives Lig. *blusto- from *bHlud-to-, from the extended root *bHleu-d- 'to swell, well up, overflow' vel sim. She takes *-iema as a collective or abstract, so Blustiemelum might be understood as 'place of frequent flooding, place of abundant landslips' vel sim. For Clastidium, rather than *kl.d-to- from the root *keld- which she suggests (pp. 45-6), which would yield Lig. *kalsto-, I believe we need *kl.h1d-to-, Lig. *kla:sto-, from *kelh1-d- 'to strike hard, strike down' vel sim., the zero-grade providing also the base of Latin <cla:de:s>.

            Another isogloss is */-onC-/ < */-n.C-/ in Blondelia, from *bHln.dHo- 'reddish, ruddy', Gmc. *blunda-, Skt. bradhna- (P.S. p. 39).

            P.S. also sees earlier */e:/ becoming a long open front vowel (in contrast to Gaul. /i:/), like Class. Grk. eta, transcribed as <ae> (cf. scaena, scaeptrum). She derives (saltus) Craedelius from *kre:dH- as found in Lat. <cre:ber>, which can describe a dense forest, crebra silva. Surely you are familiar with this book. I suspect that more isoglosses will turn up with further study.

            > Since we agree that every instance of */p/-drop can be interpreted as
            > a Celtic intrusion into formerly Ligurian territory, we can't solve
            > the second crucial point.

            On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the assimilation *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-, *pr.kWeh2- with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by Celtic. This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese <olca>. Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense), "Illyrian" (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a Q-Illyrian language spoken in Rhaetia.

            > In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
            > Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
            > innovations from PIE;
            > */gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
            > */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ could be non-Celtic as well, but we agree that it
            > could also alternatively represent a characteristic Celtic treatment
            > of lengthened grades;
            > */p/-drop is disputed and even when it could be evident it may
            > reflect Celtic infiltrations (this should in any case suggest to avoid
            > a too systematic use of 'Ligurian' as a unitary linguistic label for
            > all Ancient Liguria);
            > all remaining innovations are shared by Ligurian and Celtic and there
            > isn't such a concordance with any other IE linguistic class;
            > ergo, Ancient Ligurian is the IE linguistic class most similar to
            > Celtic: if */gwh/ > /b/ is true, Ligurian and Celtic are two
            > distinguished classes; if it isn't, Ligurian is distinguished from
            > Celtic only by a privative opposition (lack - maybe only in restricted
            > areas - of certain innovations).

            In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses between Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in the area in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical isoglosses (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about interpreting Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological isoglosses (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to regard Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are driving at.

            DGK
          • Alx
            ... just an additional information yet, neither I am pretty sure if any celts have been there, nor I am aware of the etymologie of the name. The only sure
            Message 5 of 27 , May 24, 2012
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
              > >
              > > 2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
              > > >
              > > > DGK:
              > > > This is where distribution begins to matter. If Barg-place-
              > > > names are not
              > > > commonly found throughout the whole Pan-Celtic realm,
              > >
              > > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
              > > I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be
              > > found in
              > > Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas, Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias,
              > > Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La Barge, Les Barges (Central and
              > > Western ....[SNIP]


              just an additional information yet, neither I am pretty sure if any
              celts have been there, nor I am aware of the etymologie of the name.
              The only sure aspect is the phonetical aspect of the word which
              apparently is a pre-slavic one.:

              Bârgãu Mountains

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A2rg%C4%83u_Mountains



              Alex
            • Tavi
              ... To the best of my knowledge, this can t be Celtic nor anything else. Leaving aside the *outdated* reconstruction of series III stops as voiced aspirated ,
              Message 6 of 27 , May 25, 2012
                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                >
                > In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
                > Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
                > innovations from PIE;
                > */gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
                >
                To the best of my knowledge, this can't be Celtic nor anything else. Leaving aside the *outdated* reconstruction of series III stops as "voiced aspirated", we've got gW > b in some paleo-IE dialect(s), as in IE *g^we:r- 'wild animal' > Germanic *bi:ro:n 'bear' and related Altaic forms. The reduced form with b- would possibly "reappear" in the 'brown' and 'beaver' (reduplicated) words.

                If you remember from my previous posts, these "paleo-IE dialects" (a concept I adapted from Villar) represent the fragmentation of a "paleo-IE" language more or less equivalent to a Paleolithic PIE, intended as the "last common ancestor of all IE languages". The main difference between Villar and myself is while he investigated the ancient toponymy and hydronymy of Europe and SW Asia, I study the IE lexicon as well as the one of other families. As I said before, the "PIE" reconstructed by IE-ists is actually a cross-section of the last stages of the IE family and not a real protolanguage (although it would contain the Steppe paleo-dialect as a subset).
              • patrick cuadrado
                Cremona
                Message 7 of 27 , May 25, 2012
                  Cremona < *Kremo-ponah2;
                  what means ? please

                  Patrick
                  mon blog/mes oeuvres ici
                  Arthur Unbeau
                  http://www.pikeo.com/ArthurUnbeau

                  [HTML and excess quoting deleted. -BMS]
                • dgkilday57
                  ... Oops, I must retract this one. Blondelia (Tab. Vel. twice) is morphologically parallel to Roudelius (also Tab. Vel. twice, P.S. p. 69). The latter almost
                  Message 8 of 27 , May 29, 2012
                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > [...]
                    > >
                    > > Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
                    > > */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
                    > > well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
                    > > and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
                    > > are left with */gwh/ > /b/.
                    >
                    > Uh, no, _I_ did not agree that there were only two isoglosses. Those two are simply the most obvious. Another, noted by Petracco Sicardi in "Top. prerom. e rom. della Liguria" (pp. 9-82 of "Top. stor. della Liguria", Genova 1981), is */-dt-/ > /-st-/, occurring in Blustiemelum and Clastidium. P.S. (p. 39) derives Lig. *blusto- from *bHlud-to-, from the extended root *bHleu-d- 'to swell, well up, overflow' vel sim. She takes *-iema as a collective or abstract, so Blustiemelum might be understood as 'place of frequent flooding, place of abundant landslips' vel sim. For Clastidium, rather than *kl.d-to- from the root *keld- which she suggests (pp. 45-6), which would yield Lig. *kalsto-, I believe we need *kl.h1d-to-, Lig. *kla:sto-, from *kelh1-d- 'to strike hard, strike down' vel sim., the zero-grade providing also the base of Latin <cla:de:s>.
                    >
                    > Another isogloss is */-onC-/ < */-n.C-/ in Blondelia, from *bHln.dHo- 'reddish, ruddy', Gmc. *blunda-, Skt. bradhna- (P.S. p. 39).

                    Oops, I must retract this one. Blondelia (Tab. Vel. twice) is morphologically parallel to Roudelius (also Tab. Vel. twice, P.S. p. 69). The latter almost certainly contains the /o/-grade of another color-term, *h1roudH- 'red', so Blondelia very likely contains the /o/-grade *bHlondH- 'reddish, ruddy', regardless of the grade reflected in Gmc. and Indic.

                    Therefore, I have no evidence that PIE */-n.-/ provides an isogloss between Ligurian and Gaulish. In fact, if */-n.-/ became Lig. /-an-/, as in Gaul., the river Tanarus (Plin., now Ta`naro, P.S. p. 74) can be tentatively reconstructed as *tn.h2-ro'-, corradical with *tn.h2-wo'-, Grk. <tanao's> 'outstretched, tapered, long and thin', from a set.-root *tenh2- 'to stretch to the limit' vel sim. The Ta`naro is a rather long tributary of the Po (171 miles, whatever that is in euro-kilo-meters, about 260?), so perhaps this is not too much of an etymological stretch.

                    DGK
                  • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                    ... Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: 276 km Two reconstructions can yield Tanaro: *tnh2-ero-s and *tenh2-(e)ro-s, this latter with Joseph s rule -eRa- -aRa-; another
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 1, 2012
                      2012/5/30, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                      >> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
                      >> >
                      >> > [...]
                      >> >
                      >> > Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
                      >> > */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
                      >> > well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
                      >> > and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
                      >> > are left with */gwh/ > /b/.

                      >> DGK:
                      >> Uh, no, _I_ did not agree that there were only two isoglosses. Those two
                      >> are simply the most obvious. Another, noted by Petracco Sicardi in "Top.
                      >> prerom. e rom. della Liguria" (pp. 9-82 of "Top. stor. della Liguria",
                      >> Genova 1981), is */-dt-/ > /-st-/, occurring in Blustiemelum and
                      >> Clastidium. P.S. (p. 39) derives Lig. *blusto- from *bHlud-to-, from the
                      >> extended root *bHleu-d- 'to swell, well up, overflow' vel sim. She takes
                      >> *-iema as a collective or abstract, so Blustiemelum might be understood as
                      >> 'place of frequent flooding, place of abundant landslips' vel sim. For
                      >> Clastidium, rather than *kl.d-to- from the root *keld- which she suggests
                      >> (pp. 45-6), which would yield Lig. *kalsto-, I believe we need
                      >> *kl.h1d-to-, Lig. *kla:sto-, from *kelh1-d- 'to strike hard, strike down'
                      >> vel sim., the zero-grade providing also the base of Latin <cla:de:s>.
                      >>
                      >> Another isogloss is */-onC-/ < */-n.C-/ in Blondelia, from *bHln.dHo-
                      >> 'reddish, ruddy', Gmc. *blunda-, Skt. bradhna- (P.S. p. 39).
                      >
                      > Oops, I must retract this one. Blondelia (Tab. Vel. twice) is
                      > morphologically parallel to Roudelius (also Tab. Vel. twice, P.S. p. 69).
                      > The latter almost certainly contains the /o/-grade of another color-term,
                      > *h1roudH- 'red', so Blondelia very likely contains the /o/-grade *bHlondH-
                      > 'reddish, ruddy', regardless of the grade reflected in Gmc. and Indic.
                      >
                      > Therefore, I have no evidence that PIE */-n.-/ provides an isogloss between
                      > Ligurian and Gaulish. In fact, if */-n.-/ became Lig. /-an-/, as in Gaul.,
                      > the river Tanarus (Plin., now Ta`naro, P.S. p. 74) can be tentatively
                      > reconstructed as *tn.h2-ro'-, corradical with *tn.h2-wo'-, Grk. <tanao's>
                      > 'outstretched, tapered, long and thin', from a set.-root *tenh2- 'to stretch
                      > to the limit' vel sim. The Ta`naro is a rather long tributary of the Po
                      > (171 miles, whatever that is in euro-kilo-meters, about 260?), so perhaps
                      > this is not too much of an etymological stretch.
                      >
                      > DGK


                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                      276 km
                      Two reconstructions can yield Tanaro: *tnh2-ero-s and *tenh2-(e)ro-s,
                      this latter with Joseph's rule -eRa- > -aRa-; another possible root
                      would be *(s)tenh2- 'sound'
                    • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                      ... Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: Yes, I have: *dher-to-pon-ah2 slow river (*dher- hold ), the great moor of the Scrivia. This implies ancient rivers had many
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 1, 2012
                        2012/5/25, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                        > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> 2012/5/18, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                        >> >
                        >> > DGK:
                        >> > This is where distribution begins to matter. If Barg-place-names are
                        >> > not
                        >> > commonly found throughout the whole Pan-Celtic realm,
                        >>
                        >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                        >> I think that nevertheles a certain amount of traces can be found in
                        >> Transalpine Gaul: Barges (ca. 775 Bargas, Côte-d'Or; 1234 Barias,
                        >> Haute-Loire; Haute-Saône), La Barge, Les Barges (Central and Western
                        >> France), Barjouville (1203 Barjovilla, Eure-et-Loir), Barjon (1169
                        >> Barjum, Côte-d'Or), Barjac (Ariège), where Bargius is by no way a
                        >> prototypical nomen. They are usually analyzed as occurrences of
                        >> Gaulish *barga > Western French barge 'meule de foin', but especially
                        >> when they are mountain or rock names (Les Barges d'Olonne,
                        >> Sable-d'Olonne, Vendéee; Le Bargy, SW of Cluses, Haute-Savoye) a
                        >> derivative of 'mountain' can be more appropriate, just like in
                        >> properly Ligurian area Mont des Barges (NW of Rabou, Hautes-Alpes),
                        >> Mont de la Barjaude (E/NE of Vérignon, Var)
                        >>
                        >> > DGK:
                        >> > but a cluster includes
                        >> > Greater Liguria (with the Serchio and Lima valleys, where Pieri
                        >> > extracted
                        >> > *barga), then it would appear (under your Pan-Celtic model) that those
                        >> > ultra-conservative Porcoberan Celts, who were so good at holding their
                        >> > /p/,
                        >> > were also very good at using *Barg- as opposed to mainstream Celts.
                        >>
                        >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                        >> Wait a minute. The only instance of Barg- in reasonable proximity
                        >> to Porcobera Valley is Bargagli (Genoa), in the valley of Bisagno
                        >> River, a place whose inhabitants are by the way most hated by the
                        >> Polceverines or inhabitants of Polcévera < *Purcifera = Porcobera
                        >> Valley.

                        >> Between Bargagli and Barga there are Borzone (< Brezono) and
                        >> Borzonasca (Genoa) < *brig- and Lavagna (Genoa), town and river, <
                        >> *lawo-(p)ania: 'water moor';
                        >> in Cuneo Province there are both Barge in the highest Po Valley and
                        >> Briaglia < *Brigalia nearer to Liguria, in Tanaro Valley;
                        >> in Brescia (< Brixia < *brig-) Province there's Barghe;
                        >> Bargano (Villanova del Sillaro, Lodi) lies between Milano <
                        >> Mediolanum < *Medhyo-plHnom and Cremona < *Kremo-ponah2;

                        > DGK:
                        > I presume you have the same analysis of Derto:na? Otherwise, if the /o:/
                        > did not arise that way, it provides another isogloss between Ligurian and
                        > Gaulish.
                        >
                        Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                        Yes, I have: *dher-to-pon-ah2 'slow river' (*dher- 'hold'), the great
                        moor of the Scrivia.
                        This implies ancient rivers had many different names, as it's still
                        observable in isolated remnants (Sarca = Mincio) and more so in Middle
                        Ages (Lexua = Adda).
                        Same for Adda and *Krem(H)-o-pon-ah2 (I hadn't written the meaning of
                        the first member because it wasn't relevant to the question of *o-po-
                        > Celtic *-o:-)


                        >> in the Var Departement we have both Bregançon (Bormes[!], arrond.
                        >> Toulon-sur-Mer, canton Collobrières) and Bargème (814 Bergemulu,
                        >> 1026-1064 Bargema; traditionally liked to Berigiema of the Sententia
                        >> Minuciorum!), Bargemon;
                        >> Briançon is both Ligurian (Basses-Alpes, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence;
                        >> Briançonnet Alpes-Maritimes) and Gaulish (Dordogne, Charente-Maritime,
                        >> Indre-et-Loire, Maine-et-Loire, Oise).
                        >> I think this suffices to show that *barg- and *brig- coincide in
                        >> their distribution and that there's no special correlation between
                        >> *barg- and retention of */p/

                        > DGK:
                        > Certainly there is no simple correlation, but the fact that *barg- increases
                        > in frequency toward the East of Gaul, and again toward the South into the
                        > historically Ligurian area, is suggestive.

                        Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                        Yes, it is

                        >
                        >> > DGK: In
                        >> > fact, all your model does is project the base of Celticity downward, so
                        >> > that
                        >> > /p/-retaining Ligurians are renamed as ultra-conservative /p/-retaining
                        >> > Porcoberan Celts. Now, what scholarly purpose can that serve? "I
                        >> > hereby
                        >> > plant this flag and claim this land for /p/-retaining Celts!"
                        >>
                        >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                        >>
                        >> I insist for the fourth time that it's just a matter of
                        >> terminology, as very aptly pointed out by Yourself. I wish I had never
                        >> used the term 'Celts' in this case. Let's please call them
                        >> 'Conservative Late Indo-Europeans'; what's crucial is whether they
                        >> exhibit any non-Celtic innovation or not. If they don't, we can call
                        >> them 'Ultra-Conservatives' or just how You like; if they do, they earn
                        >> a denomination that can clearly distinguish them from the Celts.
                        >> Another (the other) crucial point is whether all Ancient Ligurians
                        >> retained PIE */p/.
                        >> Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
                        >> */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
                        >> well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
                        >> and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
                        >> are left with */gwh/ > /b/.

                        > DGK:
                        > Uh, no, _I_ did not agree that there were only two isoglosses. Those two
                        > are simply the most obvious. Another, noted by Petracco Sicardi in "Top.
                        > prerom. e rom. della Liguria" (pp. 9-82 of "Top. stor. della Liguria",
                        > Genova 1981), is */-dt-/ > /-st-/, occurring in Blustiemelum and Clastidium.
                        > P.S. (p. 39) derives Lig. *blusto- from *bHlud-to-, from the extended root
                        > *bHleu-d- 'to swell, well up, overflow' vel sim. She takes *-iema as a
                        > collective or abstract, so Blustiemelum might be understood as 'place of
                        > frequent flooding, place of abundant landslips' vel sim. For Clastidium,
                        > rather than *kl.d-to- from the root *keld- which she suggests (pp. 45-6),
                        > which would yield Lig. *kalsto-, I believe we need *kl.h1d-to-, Lig.
                        > *kla:sto-, from *kelh1-d- 'to strike hard, strike down' vel sim., the
                        > zero-grade providing also the base of Latin <cla:de:s>.
                        >
                        > Another isogloss is */-onC-/ < */-n.C-/ in Blondelia, from *bHln.dHo-
                        > 'reddish, ruddy', Gmc. *blunda-, Skt. bradhna- (P.S. p. 39).
                        >
                        > P.S. also sees earlier */e:/ becoming a long open front vowel (in contrast
                        > to Gaul. /i:/), like Class. Grk. eta, transcribed as <ae> (cf. scaena,
                        > scaeptrum). She derives (saltus) Craedelius from *kre:dH- as found in Lat.
                        > <cre:ber>, which can describe a dense forest, crebra silva. Surely you are
                        > familiar with this book. I suspect that more isoglosses will turn up with
                        > further study.

                        Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                        Romance-speaking Scholars often fail to remember that PIE had
                        productive ablaut rules. It's conceivable that Giacomo Devoto, judging
                        more or less for the first time the possibility of an IE affiliation
                        of Ligurian, took *blond- for a perfect match to *blunda-, but - as
                        You have very aptly pointed out in Your following message - a
                        different ablaut explication is perfectly justifiable.
                        Giulia Petracco Sicardi's analysis of Craedelius is built on a
                        systematic equation of <ae> with /ɛ:/ which in turn reflects a typical
                        Italian unwillingness to abandon the received (tradita) pronounciation
                        of Latin in favour of the restituta; although it's a possible
                        etymology, it implies that Ligurian either had no /ai/ or had no means
                        to distinguish it from /ɛ:/ in Latin script. I prefer a more
                        Celtologic hypothesis, viz. Craedelius : OIndic kraid.iná- 'belonging
                        to the winds', therefore Celtic *Kra:içd-elios (cf, Schrijver 1995
                        SBCHPh: 376 ) < *Kra:izd-elios < PIE *Kro:isd-elyo-s (*krisd- 'move
                        violently', Mayrhofer EWA I 413).
                        For Blustiemelum I've proposed *bhleus- 'burn' or *bheluHs- 'beat',
                        therefore with PIE *-st-; for *klasti- in Clastidium there's a much
                        more direct PIE *klh2(t)-sti- > German Last.
                        I think this is all. Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
                        together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
                        with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
                        form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
                        Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
                        and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
                        coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
                        is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
                        are trying to do.

                        >
                        >> Since we agree that every instance of */p/-drop can be interpreted as
                        >> a Celtic intrusion into formerly Ligurian territory, we can't solve
                        >> the second crucial point.

                        > DGK:
                        > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the assimilation
                        > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-, *pr.kWeh2-
                        > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by Celtic.
                        > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese <olca>.
                        > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense), "Illyrian"
                        > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a Q-Illyrian
                        > language spoken in Rhaetia.

                        Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                        This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
                        from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
                        Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
                        formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
                        *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
                        *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
                        Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
                        to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
                        hypercorrect reaction)
                        >
                        >> In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
                        >> Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
                        >> innovations from PIE;
                        >> */gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
                        >> */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ could be non-Celtic as well, but we agree that it
                        >> could also alternatively represent a characteristic Celtic treatment
                        >> of lengthened grades;
                        >> */p/-drop is disputed and even when it could be evident it may
                        >> reflect Celtic infiltrations (this should in any case suggest to avoid
                        >> a too systematic use of 'Ligurian' as a unitary linguistic label for
                        >> all Ancient Liguria);
                        >> all remaining innovations are shared by Ligurian and Celtic and there
                        >> isn't such a concordance with any other IE linguistic class;
                        >> ergo, Ancient Ligurian is the IE linguistic class most similar to
                        >> Celtic: if */gwh/ > /b/ is true, Ligurian and Celtic are two
                        >> distinguished classes; if it isn't, Ligurian is distinguished from
                        >> Celtic only by a privative opposition (lack - maybe only in restricted
                        >> areas - of certain innovations).

                        > DGK:
                        > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses between
                        > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in the area
                        > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical isoglosses
                        > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about interpreting
                        > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological isoglosses
                        > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to regard
                        > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are driving
                        > at.
                        >
                        > DGK
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                        No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
                        Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
                        for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking Matasović for the Golden Book
                        of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović could be
                        Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
                        even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
                        definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
                        criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
                        Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
                        doesn't occur in Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
                        it's useless to continue
                      • dgkilday57
                        ... Petracco Sicardi seems to prefer that, but are 276 km of thunderous noise plausible? I might consider it if the Tanaro had a very large waterfall, and the
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jun 5, 2012
                          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > 2012/5/30, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                          > >
                          > > [...]
                          > >
                          > > Oops, I must retract this one. Blondelia (Tab. Vel. twice) is
                          > > morphologically parallel to Roudelius (also Tab. Vel. twice, P.S. p. 69).
                          > > The latter almost certainly contains the /o/-grade of another color-term,
                          > > *h1roudH- 'red', so Blondelia very likely contains the /o/-grade *bHlondH-
                          > > 'reddish, ruddy', regardless of the grade reflected in Gmc. and Indic.
                          > >
                          > > Therefore, I have no evidence that PIE */-n.-/ provides an isogloss between
                          > > Ligurian and Gaulish. In fact, if */-n.-/ became Lig. /-an-/, as in Gaul.,
                          > > the river Tanarus (Plin., now Ta`naro, P.S. p. 74) can be tentatively
                          > > reconstructed as *tn.h2-ro'-, corradical with *tn.h2-wo'-, Grk. <tanao's>
                          > > 'outstretched, tapered, long and thin', from a set.-root *tenh2- 'to stretch
                          > > to the limit' vel sim. The Ta`naro is a rather long tributary of the Po
                          > > (171 miles, whatever that is in euro-kilo-meters, about 260?), so perhaps
                          > > this is not too much of an etymological stretch.
                          >
                          >
                          > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                          > 276 km
                          > Two reconstructions can yield Tanaro: *tnh2-ero-s and *tenh2-(e)ro-s,
                          > this latter with Joseph's rule -eRa- > -aRa-; another possible root
                          > would be *(s)tenh2- 'sound'

                          Petracco Sicardi seems to prefer that, but are 276 km of thunderous noise plausible? I might consider it if the Tanaro had a very large waterfall, and the river was named after the waterfall, more or less like the Niagara River. (Supposedly Niagara means 'Thunder', and was applied by natives to the area around the waterfall. I do not know what the same natives called the river, which at any rate is much shorter than the Tanaro.)

                          DGK
                        • dgkilday57
                          ... These phases overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE Ligurian long after Kretschmer s paper (which is hardly a set of happy guesses ), and
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jun 5, 2012
                            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > 2012/5/25, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                            > >
                            > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                            > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >> [...]
                            > >>
                            > >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                            > >>
                            > >> I insist for the fourth time that it's just a matter of
                            > >> terminology, as very aptly pointed out by Yourself. I wish I had never
                            > >> used the term 'Celts' in this case. Let's please call them
                            > >> 'Conservative Late Indo-Europeans'; what's crucial is whether they
                            > >> exhibit any non-Celtic innovation or not. If they don't, we can call
                            > >> them 'Ultra-Conservatives' or just how You like; if they do, they earn
                            > >> a denomination that can clearly distinguish them from the Celts.
                            > >> Another (the other) crucial point is whether all Ancient Ligurians
                            > >> retained PIE */p/.
                            > >> Since we agree that 1) all Ligurian innovations but */gwh/ > /b/ and
                            > >> */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ are shared with Celtic (and with other IE classes as
                            > >> well, but never more or even just as systematically as with Celtic)
                            > >> and 2) /-arT-/ can be explained as outcome of a lengthened grade, we
                            > >> are left with */gwh/ > /b/.
                            >
                            > > DGK:
                            > > Uh, no, _I_ did not agree that there were only two isoglosses. Those two
                            > > are simply the most obvious. Another, noted by Petracco Sicardi in "Top.
                            > > prerom. e rom. della Liguria" (pp. 9-82 of "Top. stor. della Liguria",
                            > > Genova 1981), is */-dt-/ > /-st-/, occurring in Blustiemelum and Clastidium.
                            > > P.S. (p. 39) derives Lig. *blusto- from *bHlud-to-, from the extended root
                            > > *bHleu-d- 'to swell, well up, overflow' vel sim. She takes *-iema as a
                            > > collective or abstract, so Blustiemelum might be understood as 'place of
                            > > frequent flooding, place of abundant landslips' vel sim. For Clastidium,
                            > > rather than *kl.d-to- from the root *keld- which she suggests (pp. 45-6),
                            > > which would yield Lig. *kalsto-, I believe we need *kl.h1d-to-, Lig.
                            > > *kla:sto-, from *kelh1-d- 'to strike hard, strike down' vel sim., the
                            > > zero-grade providing also the base of Latin <cla:de:s>.
                            > >
                            > > Another isogloss is */-onC-/ < */-n.C-/ in Blondelia, from *bHln.dHo-
                            > > 'reddish, ruddy', Gmc. *blunda-, Skt. bradhna- (P.S. p. 39).
                            > >
                            > > P.S. also sees earlier */e:/ becoming a long open front vowel (in contrast
                            > > to Gaul. /i:/), like Class. Grk. eta, transcribed as <ae> (cf. scaena,
                            > > scaeptrum). She derives (saltus) Craedelius from *kre:dH- as found in Lat.
                            > > <cre:ber>, which can describe a dense forest, crebra silva. Surely you are
                            > > familiar with this book. I suspect that more isoglosses will turn up with
                            > > further study.
                            >
                            > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                            > Romance-speaking Scholars often fail to remember that PIE had
                            > productive ablaut rules. It's conceivable that Giacomo Devoto, judging
                            > more or less for the first time the possibility of an IE affiliation
                            > of Ligurian, took *blond- for a perfect match to *blunda-, but - as
                            > You have very aptly pointed out in Your following message - a
                            > different ablaut explication is perfectly justifiable.
                            > Giulia Petracco Sicardi's analysis of Craedelius is built on a
                            > systematic equation of <ae> with /ɛ:/ which in turn reflects a typical
                            > Italian unwillingness to abandon the received (tradita) pronounciation
                            > of Latin in favour of the restituta; although it's a possible
                            > etymology, it implies that Ligurian either had no /ai/ or had no means
                            > to distinguish it from /ɛ:/ in Latin script. I prefer a more
                            > Celtologic hypothesis, viz. Craedelius : OIndic kraid.iná- 'belonging
                            > to the winds', therefore Celtic *Kra:içd-elios (cf, Schrijver 1995
                            > SBCHPh: 376 ) < *Kra:izd-elios < PIE *Kro:isd-elyo-s (*krisd- 'move
                            > violently', Mayrhofer EWA I 413).
                            > For Blustiemelum I've proposed *bhleus- 'burn' or *bheluHs- 'beat',
                            > therefore with PIE *-st-; for *klasti- in Clastidium there's a much
                            > more direct PIE *klh2(t)-sti- > German Last.
                            > I think this is all. Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
                            > together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
                            > with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
                            > form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
                            > Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
                            > and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
                            > coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
                            > is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
                            > are trying to do.

                            These "phases" overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE Ligurian long after Kretschmer's paper (which is hardly a set of "happy guesses"), and Rhy^s was arguing for Celticism even before Kretschmer's paper. I would say there are three schools of thought here. I belong to Kretschmer's, and you belong to Rhy^s's.

                            > >> Since we agree that every instance of */p/-drop can be interpreted as
                            > >> a Celtic intrusion into formerly Ligurian territory, we can't solve
                            > >> the second crucial point.
                            >
                            > > DGK:
                            > > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the assimilation
                            > > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-, *pr.kWeh2-
                            > > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by Celtic.
                            > > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese <olca>.
                            > > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense), "Illyrian"
                            > > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a Q-Illyrian
                            > > language spoken in Rhaetia.
                            >
                            > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                            > This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
                            > from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
                            > Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
                            > formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
                            > *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
                            > *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
                            > Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
                            > to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
                            > hypercorrect reaction)

                            Latin <quercus> shows that the assimilation preceded delabialization of *kW before *u. The length presumably comes from the same place as in Lat. <portu:nus>, etc.: denominal adjectival formations in *-h2no- and *-h2ni-.

                            I accept your reasoning about Piem. <olca>, and I will stop citing it in this connection, but we still have Trent. <porca>.

                            > >> In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
                            > >> Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
                            > >> innovations from PIE;
                            > >> */gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
                            > >> */-rT-/ > /-arT-/ could be non-Celtic as well, but we agree that it
                            > >> could also alternatively represent a characteristic Celtic treatment
                            > >> of lengthened grades;
                            > >> */p/-drop is disputed and even when it could be evident it may
                            > >> reflect Celtic infiltrations (this should in any case suggest to avoid
                            > >> a too systematic use of 'Ligurian' as a unitary linguistic label for
                            > >> all Ancient Liguria);
                            > >> all remaining innovations are shared by Ligurian and Celtic and there
                            > >> isn't such a concordance with any other IE linguistic class;
                            > >> ergo, Ancient Ligurian is the IE linguistic class most similar to
                            > >> Celtic: if */gwh/ > /b/ is true, Ligurian and Celtic are two
                            > >> distinguished classes; if it isn't, Ligurian is distinguished from
                            > >> Celtic only by a privative opposition (lack - maybe only in restricted
                            > >> areas - of certain innovations).
                            >
                            > > DGK:
                            > > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses between
                            > > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in the area
                            > > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical isoglosses
                            > > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about interpreting
                            > > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological isoglosses
                            > > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to regard
                            > > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are driving
                            > > at.
                            > >
                            > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                            >
                            > No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
                            > Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
                            > for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking Matasović for the Golden Book
                            > of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović could be
                            > Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
                            > even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
                            > definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
                            > criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
                            > Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
                            > doesn't occur in Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
                            > it's useless to continue

                            All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted (as most Celtologists do!) any more.

                            DGK
                          • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                            ... Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: Yes, sure. With guesses I meant something neutral: one realizes (or proposes) that language X is IE, but has then to discover the
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jun 8, 2012
                              2012/6/6, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                              >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                              >> (...) Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
                              >> together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
                              >> with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
                              >> form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
                              >> Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
                              >> and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
                              >> coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
                              >> is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
                              >> are trying to do.

                              > DGK:
                              > These "phases" overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE Ligurian
                              > long after Kretschmer's paper (which is hardly a set of "happy guesses"),
                              > and Rhy^s was arguing for Celticism even before Kretschmer's paper. I would
                              > say there are three schools of thought here. I belong to Kretschmer's, and
                              > you belong to Rhy^s's.
                              >

                              Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                              Yes, sure. With "guesses" I meant something neutral: one realizes
                              (or proposes) that language X is IE, but has then to discover the
                              detalis of its diachronic phonology; he has to start with equations
                              where, for instance, vocalism can either represent the direct
                              evolution of one and the same vowel or exhibit the direct evolution of
                              a different ablaut grade: just like Aryan /a/ in closed syllable vs.
                              Greek /o/ can be either PIE */e/ or */o/, Ligurian vowels can be
                              directly equated with their matches in the corresponding words from
                              other IE languages (this is the guess) but can also represent, as an
                              alternative, a different ablaut grade (this is a guess as well).
                              In the Celtic Hypothesis, the only - great - guess is the
                              hypothesis itself; all the rest are corollaries (evaluation of vowels
                              included).

                              >> > DGK:
                              >> > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the
                              >> > assimilation
                              >> > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-,
                              >> > *pr.kWeh2-
                              >> > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by Celtic.
                              >> > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese <olca>.
                              >> > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense),
                              >> > "Illyrian"
                              >> > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a
                              >> > Q-Illyrian
                              >> > language spoken in Rhaetia.
                              >>
                              >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                              >> This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
                              >> from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
                              >> Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
                              >> formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
                              >> *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
                              >> *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
                              >> Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
                              >> to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
                              >> hypercorrect reaction)

                              > DGK:
                              > Latin <quercus> shows that the assimilation preceded delabialization of *kW
                              > before *u. The length presumably comes from the same place as in Lat.
                              > <portu:nus>, etc.: denominal adjectival formations in *-h2no- and *-h2ni-.
                              >
                              > I accept your reasoning about Piem. <olca>, and I will stop citing it in
                              > this connection, but we still have Trent. <porca>.
                              >

                              Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                              In Trentine <porca>, <c> = [k], as long as it's before
                              non-stressed /a/, can continue both Latin (and Pre-Latin) /k/ and
                              /kw/.
                              If it were from */k/, it would be a very strange Illyrian word,
                              since it would exhibit IE short /o/ (not /a/) but satem treatment
                              (/k/) of the labio-velar */kw/, unless You maintain PIE syllabic /r/
                              has become /or/ (open [ɔ]) as in Italic instead of /ri/ as in
                              Albanian.
                              If it were from */kw/, it would be a conservative IE form (*porkwa:)

                              >> > DGK:
                              >> > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses
                              >> > between
                              >> > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in the
                              >> > area
                              >> > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical isoglosses
                              >> > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about interpreting
                              >> > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological
                              >> > isoglosses
                              >> > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to
                              >> > regard
                              >> > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are
                              >> > driving
                              >> > at.
                              >> >
                              >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                              >>
                              >> No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
                              >> Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
                              >> for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking Matasović for the Golden Book
                              >> of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović could be
                              >> Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
                              >> even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
                              >> definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
                              >> criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
                              >> Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
                              >> doesn't occur in Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
                              >> it's useless to continue

                              > DGK:
                              > All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted (as
                              > most Celtologists do!) any more.
                              >

                              Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                              Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as a Celtic
                              language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid misunderstandings,
                              it's so difficult to avoid them)
                            • Tavi
                              ... A silly question (just to avoid misunderstandings): when you write You , with an initial capital, do you mean the 2nd person pronoun /you/?
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jun 8, 2012
                                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as a Celtic
                                > language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid misunderstandings,
                                > it's so difficult to avoid them)
                                >
                                A "silly" question (just to avoid misunderstandings): when you write "You", with an initial capital, do you mean the 2nd person pronoun /you/?
                              • Brian M. Scott
                                ... Presumably it reflects the German polite second person pronoun .
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jun 8, 2012
                                  At 7:27:11 AM on Friday, June 8, 2012, Tavi wrote:

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

                                  >> Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as
                                  >> a Celtic language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid
                                  >> misunderstandings, it's so difficult to avoid them)

                                  > A "silly" question (just to avoid misunderstandings): when
                                  > you write "You", with an initial capital, do you mean the
                                  > 2nd person pronoun /you/?

                                  Presumably it reflects the German polite second person
                                  pronoun <Sie>.
                                • dgkilday57
                                  ... What precisely is your version of the Celtic Hypothesis ? How could one possibly falsify it, when you have licensed yourself /p/-retention as an archaic
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jun 11, 2012
                                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > 2012/6/6, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                                    > >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                    > >> (...) Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
                                    > >> together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
                                    > >> with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
                                    > >> form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
                                    > >> Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
                                    > >> and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
                                    > >> coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
                                    > >> is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
                                    > >> are trying to do.
                                    >
                                    > > DGK:
                                    > > These "phases" overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE Ligurian
                                    > > long after Kretschmer's paper (which is hardly a set of "happy guesses"),
                                    > > and Rhy^s was arguing for Celticism even before Kretschmer's paper. I would
                                    > > say there are three schools of thought here. I belong to Kretschmer's, and
                                    > > you belong to Rhy^s's.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                    >
                                    > Yes, sure. With "guesses" I meant something neutral: one realizes
                                    > (or proposes) that language X is IE, but has then to discover the
                                    > detalis of its diachronic phonology; he has to start with equations
                                    > where, for instance, vocalism can either represent the direct
                                    > evolution of one and the same vowel or exhibit the direct evolution of
                                    > a different ablaut grade: just like Aryan /a/ in closed syllable vs.
                                    > Greek /o/ can be either PIE */e/ or */o/, Ligurian vowels can be
                                    > directly equated with their matches in the corresponding words from
                                    > other IE languages (this is the guess) but can also represent, as an
                                    > alternative, a different ablaut grade (this is a guess as well).
                                    > In the Celtic Hypothesis, the only - great - guess is the
                                    > hypothesis itself; all the rest are corollaries (evaluation of vowels
                                    > included).

                                    What precisely is your version of "the Celtic Hypothesis"? How could one possibly falsify it, when you have licensed yourself /p/-retention as an archaic Celticism, and all other traditionally non-Celtic features as regional Celticisms? I am reminded of this "Harold" character on sci.lang who etymologized almost all European river-names as Celtic.

                                    > >> > DGK:
                                    > >> > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the
                                    > >> > assimilation
                                    > >> > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-,
                                    > >> > *pr.kWeh2-
                                    > >> > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by Celtic.
                                    > >> > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese <olca>.
                                    > >> > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense),
                                    > >> > "Illyrian"
                                    > >> > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a
                                    > >> > Q-Illyrian
                                    > >> > language spoken in Rhaetia.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                    > >> This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
                                    > >> from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
                                    > >> Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
                                    > >> formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
                                    > >> *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
                                    > >> *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
                                    > >> Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
                                    > >> to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
                                    > >> hypercorrect reaction)
                                    >
                                    > > DGK:
                                    > > Latin <quercus> shows that the assimilation preceded delabialization of *kW
                                    > > before *u. The length presumably comes from the same place as in Lat.
                                    > > <portu:nus>, etc.: denominal adjectival formations in *-h2no- and *-h2ni-.
                                    > >
                                    > > I accept your reasoning about Piem. <olca>, and I will stop citing it in
                                    > > this connection, but we still have Trent. <porca>.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                    >
                                    > In Trentine <porca>, <c> = [k], as long as it's before
                                    > non-stressed /a/, can continue both Latin (and Pre-Latin) /k/ and
                                    > /kw/.
                                    > If it were from */k/, it would be a very strange Illyrian word,
                                    > since it would exhibit IE short /o/ (not /a/) but satem treatment
                                    > (/k/) of the labio-velar */kw/, unless You maintain PIE syllabic /r/
                                    > has become /or/ (open [É"]) as in Italic instead of /ri/ as in
                                    > Albanian.
                                    > If it were from */kw/, it would be a conservative IE form (*porkwa:)

                                    Albanian is irrelevant to Illyrian, since Durante showed that A. cannot be descended from I. Krahe regarded */or/ and */ol/ as pre-cons. reflexes of syllabic *r. and *l., and we have <-ikkos> '-horse' in Tarentine Greek personal names, thus Messapic (and presumably Q-Ill.) *k^w > */kk/; since onomastic and other evidence shows that Ill. is a centum lg., there is no problem with *pr.kWah2 > Q-Ill. *porkka: > Rhaetic *porka(:).

                                    > >> > DGK:
                                    > >> > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses
                                    > >> > between
                                    > >> > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in the
                                    > >> > area
                                    > >> > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical isoglosses
                                    > >> > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about interpreting
                                    > >> > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological
                                    > >> > isoglosses
                                    > >> > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to
                                    > >> > regard
                                    > >> > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are
                                    > >> > driving
                                    > >> > at.
                                    > >> >
                                    > >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                    > >>
                                    > >> No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
                                    > >> Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
                                    > >> for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking Matasović for the Golden Book
                                    > >> of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović could be
                                    > >> Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
                                    > >> even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
                                    > >> definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
                                    > >> criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
                                    > >> Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
                                    > >> doesn't occur in Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
                                    > >> it's useless to continue
                                    >
                                    > > DGK:
                                    > > All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted (as
                                    > > most Celtologists do!) any more.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                    >
                                    > Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as a Celtic
                                    > language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid misunderstandings,
                                    > it's so difficult to avoid them)

                                    I think "think" or something dropped out of the question. Yes, I think most Celtologists today take for granted the assignment of Lepontic to Celtic. To his credit, Matasovic' proceeds with caution, observing the flimsiness of basing linguistic assignments entirely upon personal names.

                                    DGK
                                  • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                                    ... Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: My theoretical frame is as follows: 1) we don t know Prehistory, therefore we construct models; 2) all models can be comprised
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jun 17, 2012
                                      2012/6/12, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                                      > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                                      >>
                                      >> 2012/6/6, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                                      >> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      >> >> (...) Ligurian's diachronic phonology has been put
                                      >> >> together in three phases, the first one in a non-IE perspective, then
                                      >> >> with more or less happy guesses as if it were an IE language different
                                      >> >> form any other one, finally in a Celtological frame; G. Petracco
                                      >> >> Sicardi's book is primarily intended as a toponymic reference primer
                                      >> >> and therefore makes scarcely any attempt to a dialectologically
                                      >> >> coherent representation, but it seems to me (and to her too) that time
                                      >> >> is ripe for an improved discussion of that topic and this is wat we
                                      >> >> are trying to do.
                                      >>
                                      >> > DGK:
                                      >> > These "phases" overlapped. Alessio was still arguing for a non-IE
                                      >> > Ligurian
                                      >> > long after Kretschmer's paper (which is hardly a set of "happy
                                      >> > guesses"),
                                      >> > and Rhy^s was arguing for Celticism even before Kretschmer's paper. I
                                      >> > would
                                      >> > say there are three schools of thought here. I belong to Kretschmer's,
                                      >> > and
                                      >> > you belong to Rhy^s's.
                                      >> >
                                      >>
                                      >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      >>
                                      >> Yes, sure. With "guesses" I meant something neutral: one realizes
                                      >> (or proposes) that language X is IE, but has then to discover the
                                      >> detalis of its diachronic phonology; he has to start with equations
                                      >> where, for instance, vocalism can either represent the direct
                                      >> evolution of one and the same vowel or exhibit the direct evolution of
                                      >> a different ablaut grade: just like Aryan /a/ in closed syllable vs.
                                      >> Greek /o/ can be either PIE */e/ or */o/, Ligurian vowels can be
                                      >> directly equated with their matches in the corresponding words from
                                      >> other IE languages (this is the guess) but can also represent, as an
                                      >> alternative, a different ablaut grade (this is a guess as well).
                                      >> In the Celtic Hypothesis, the only - great - guess is the
                                      >> hypothesis itself; all the rest are corollaries (evaluation of vowels
                                      >> included).

                                      > DGK:
                                      > What precisely is your version of "the Celtic Hypothesis"?

                                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                                      My theoretical frame is as follows:
                                      1) we don't know Prehistory, therefore we construct models;
                                      2) all models can be comprised between two extreme versions - a
                                      maximum and a minimum of stratifications;
                                      3) both extremes must be just a step before unbelievability, i.e.
                                      they have to be proven correct;
                                      4) I've almost left any hope to find the maximal point of
                                      stratificatonism: I'm collecting more and more theories (Yours is one
                                      of them) and try to keep them together;
                                      5) the opposite extreme - the minimal point of stratificationism - is
                                      much easier to be found: Almost only historically attested language
                                      substitutions have taken place;
                                      6) between these extreme points, I'm looking for a provisional model
                                      with the minimal amount of pre-historical postulations (substrates)
                                      which explain linguistic evidence better than scenario n° 5 does (for
                                      instance, I believe that an unattested IE substrate can indeed explain
                                      a certain amount of North African place-names better than
                                      Hamito-Semitic etymologies - although in itself perfectly regular -
                                      can do; maybe something converse would be possible in Crete with
                                      Semitic etymologies prevailing over IE ones, I can't make my mind up);
                                      7) in this 'intermediate' (but inclining to Minimalism) model, almost
                                      every ancient Hamitic or Semitic language can have developed in situ
                                      (with the obvious exceptions of Punic and similar cases), almost every
                                      IE language can have developed in situ and so on (possible boundary
                                      zones: Northern Africa, Low Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia,
                                      Tibet, North-Western China);
                                      8) in this frame, ancient Cisalpine Gaul shows Celtic evidence;
                                      Proper Liguria shows place-names whose interpretations manifestly
                                      don't coincide with any Celtic language, but at the same time are
                                      nearest to Celtic than to any other IE class and, above all, never
                                      compel to admit non-Celtic innovations as better solutions in
                                      opposition to bare conservation of PIE features;
                                      9) the same considerations are applied to every pre-4th c. BCE Celtic area;
                                      10) similar considerations are applied to every IE class - Germanic
                                      (in non-Celtic areas), Slavic (in non-Baltic, non-Germanic,
                                      non-Illyrian, non-Daco-Misian, and non-Thracian areas), Armenian (in
                                      non-Anatolian areas), Tocharian and so on;
                                      11) similar considerations are applied to every language family -
                                      North Caucasian, Kartvelian, Afrasian, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan,
                                      Amerind and so on

                                      > DGK:
                                      > How could one possibly falsify it,

                                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                                      I twice (e.g. on 2012/5/11, 00:57) wrote:

                                      "(...) If there were non-Celtic inovations,
                                      they would be recognized as such. E.g., a place-name †Medioplo:nom (or
                                      †Mediopla:nom, depending on it final member's etymology) could be
                                      immediately recognized as Venetic or Latin, †Mefioplu:no resp.
                                      †Mefiopla:no as Italic, †Midiaflo:na- as Germanic and so on.

                                      The proof is that, of course, although a regular Celtic etymology
                                      would be possible (for †Medioplo:nom *medio- + *plo- + *(f)ono-, where
                                      *plo- < PIE *kwl(H)-o-, compounded form of *kwlH-ah2 > pala:, with
                                      neognós laryngeal deletion, and *(f)ono- < *pono- 'water'), the risk
                                      of a casual coincidence with real Celtic lexical items (*medio-, pala
                                      and *ono-) would be nevertheless higher in such a three disyllables
                                      analysis than in a straightforward comparison between the entire
                                      tetrasyllable compound *Mediola:non and its potential Venetic match.
                                      Therefore, the etymology of †Medioplo:nom as the Venetic outcome of
                                      PIE *Medhyo-plh1no-m (> Celtic *Mediola:non) is statistically more
                                      probable than the analysis of †Medioplo:nom as the Celtic output of
                                      PIE *Medhyo-kwlHo-pono-."
                                      (I am still waiting to learn how could one possibly falsify You own theory.)

                                      > DGK:
                                      > when you have licensed yourself /p/-retention as an
                                      > archaic Celticism, and all other traditionally non-Celtic features as
                                      > regional Celticisms?

                                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                                      We all agree that Celtic, like every IE language, is a transformation
                                      of Indo-European (or PIE, where "P" simply means 'Prehistorical';
                                      ultimately, Celtic is - like every IE language - a transformation of
                                      Proto-Indo-European or "PIE" as well).
                                      "Traditionally non-Celtic features" must therefore be distinguished
                                      into a) presence of non-Celtic innovations and b) absence of Celtic
                                      innovations. An IE language with b but not a is an intermediate stage
                                      between PIE and Celtic, and since it would have never reached full
                                      Celtic status, we can label it as follows: An IE language which shows
                                      no innovations would be PIE itself; an IE language which shows some
                                      innovations can, if the complex of these innovations recurs only in
                                      Celtic, be labeled as archaic Celtic (the innovations can individually
                                      occur in other IE classes as well, but if they as a whole are matched
                                      only by Celtic, this latter is the only relevant class).
                                      If, on the contrary, the language under examinations shows
                                      innovations of type a), then it is definitely non-Celtic and a name
                                      for its own is necessary.
                                      You believe Ligurian is a) (presence of non-Celtic innovations), I
                                      believe it's b) (absence of some Celtic innovations). We both agree
                                      that Ligurian lacked some Celtic innovations and that it had some
                                      innovations as against PIE; we also agree that some of these
                                      innovations where identical with Celtic innovations. I'm satisfied
                                      with such innovations, You recognize other, non-Celtic ones. So please
                                      stop returning on "Celtic" about my theory (where "Celtic" simply
                                      stands for "Late IE, with a number of innovations, where these
                                      innovations are always isoglosses with Celtic languages - alone or
                                      with other IE languages too - but don't complete the whole inventory
                                      of Celtic innovations"; don't You like "Celtic" in this sense? You can
                                      choose other names, e.g. "Western-Central Late IE"). The crucial point
                                      is that You recognize other innovations and that these innovations are
                                      clearly non-Celtic: You have to demonstrate (not just propose) them, I
                                      can try to criticize Your demonstrations.
                                      Another question is slightly different: I maintain that Celts are
                                      indigenous (= they represent the local transformation of PIE) in
                                      Central and Western Europe, including Liguria (in its proper and wider
                                      sense). In this case I have to present demonstrations and You can try
                                      to criticize them.
                                      It could even happen that You succeed in demonstrating that Ligurian
                                      had clearly non-Celtic innovations and I succeed in demonstrating that
                                      Celts were indigenous in Liguria. There would be no contradiction: It
                                      would mean that Ligurians were latecomers. (That Transalpine Gauls did
                                      invade Cisalpine Gaul in Late Bronze or Early Iron Age is irrelevant:
                                      A stratification IE > Celts, then Ligurians, than Gauls would be
                                      perfeclty possible.)

                                      > DGK:
                                      > I am reminded of this "Harold" character on sci.lang
                                      > who etymologized almost all European river-names as Celtic.


                                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                                      A character who writes "Homer, whose real name is Kimer which means
                                      he is a Cimmerian Celt" or "Ellas-Gallas, the name for Greece" is for
                                      You the same as one who, as in my case, has published a monograph on
                                      Valtline with 60,000 PIE reconstructed forms...
                                      I thought You and I were more similar to each other than to Harold,
                                      but if You feel as You have written I can only conclude that You have
                                      a tendency to put whoever disagrees with You in a melting pot of
                                      Pan-celticists.

                                      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:
                                      >> >> > On another matter, however, since Celtic and Italic share the
                                      >> >> > assimilation
                                      >> >> > *p...kW... > *kW...kW..., reflexes of the tree-name *perkWu-,
                                      >> >> > *pr.kWeh2-
                                      >> >> > with */p/-drop must have been borrowed rather than inherited by
                                      >> >> > Celtic.
                                      >> >> > This applies to Hercy:nia, Orku:nia, Arku:nia, and Piemontese
                                      >> >> > <olca>.
                                      >> >> > Trentine <porca> is presumably "Rhaetic" (in Hubschmied's sense),
                                      >> >> > "Illyrian"
                                      >> >> > (in Krahe's sense); we might compromise on "Rhaeto-Illyrian", a
                                      >> >> > Q-Illyrian
                                      >> >> > language spoken in Rhaetia.
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      >> >> This hardly applies to Hercynia (where do You get long /y:/
                                      >> >> from?), because it had since long no */kW/ more (before /u/).
                                      >> >> Piemontese olca 'Swiss Pine' is in my humble opinion the same
                                      >> >> formation as its Gaulish homophone olca 'brownfield land' < PIE
                                      >> >> *polk'ah2 'Gewendetes' (Pokorny 807); in any case it can't reflect
                                      >> >> *orka: because no */r/ > /l/ is known either in Gaulish or in
                                      >> >> Piemontese (nor Western Lombard and Ligurian intervocalic */l/ > /*r/,
                                      >> >> to which a */r/ > /l/ mutation could theoretically consitute a
                                      >> >> hypercorrect reaction)
                                      >>
                                      >> > DGK:
                                      >> > Latin <quercus> shows that the assimilation preceded delabialization of
                                      >> > *kW
                                      >> > before *u. The length presumably comes from the same place as in Lat.
                                      >> > <portu:nus>, etc.: denominal adjectival formations in *-h2no- and
                                      >> > *-h2ni-.
                                      >> >
                                      >> > I accept your reasoning about Piem. <olca>, and I will stop citing it
                                      >> > in
                                      >> > this connection, but we still have Trent. <porca>.
                                      >> >
                                      >>
                                      >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      >>
                                      >> In Trentine <porca>, <c> = [k], as long as it's before
                                      >> non-stressed /a/, can continue both Latin (and Pre-Latin) /k/ and
                                      >> /kw/.
                                      >> If it were from */k/, it would be a very strange Illyrian word,
                                      >> since it would exhibit IE short /o/ (not /a/) but satem treatment
                                      >> (/k/) of the labio-velar */kw/, unless You maintain PIE syllabic /r/
                                      >> has become /or/ (open [É"]) as in Italic instead of /ri/ as in
                                      >> Albanian.
                                      >> If it were from */kw/, it would be a conservative IE form (*porkwa:)

                                      > DGK:
                                      > Albanian is irrelevant to Illyrian, since Durante showed that A. cannot be
                                      > descended from I. Krahe regarded */or/ and */ol/ as pre-cons. reflexes of
                                      > syllabic *r. and *l., and we have <-ikkos> '-horse' in Tarentine Greek
                                      > personal names, thus Messapic (and presumably Q-Ill.) *k^w > */kk/; since
                                      > onomastic and other evidence shows that Ill. is a centum lg., there is no
                                      > problem with *pr.kWah2 > Q-Ill. *porkka: > Rhaetic *porka(:).
                                      >


                                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

                                      there isn't any more problem with *porkWah2 > Late IE *porkwa:,
                                      assumed into Alpine Latin as *porqua > Trentine porca.
                                      In the economy of our discussion, Trentine porca doesn't imply any
                                      other substrate beside Venetic or Late IE pockets



                                      >> >> > DGK:
                                      >> >> > In my view, we do not yet have the totality of phonetic isoglosses
                                      >> >> > between
                                      >> >> > Ligurian and Gaulish (the ONLY securely Celtic language spoken in
                                      >> >> > the
                                      >> >> > area
                                      >> >> > in pre-Roman times), we have only begun to discuss lexical
                                      >> >> > isoglosses
                                      >> >> > (*dHeigW- in Lig. but not Celt., and if I am right about
                                      >> >> > interpreting
                                      >> >> > Lepontic <teu>, *dHeh1- in Lig. but not Celt.) and morphological
                                      >> >> > isoglosses
                                      >> >> > (-asc- in Lig., -isc- in Celt.). Therefore, it would be foolish to
                                      >> >> > regard
                                      >> >> > Ligurian as "almost Celtic" or "para-Celtic" or whatever you are
                                      >> >> > driving
                                      >> >> > at.
                                      >> >> >
                                      >> >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >> No, please, no. You are again taking for granted that Lepontic isn't
                                      >> >> Celtic and therefore anything Lepontic is automatically non-Celtic. As
                                      >> >> for *dHeigW-, You are on one side taking Matasović for the Golden
                                      >> >> Book
                                      >> >> of Pure Celtic (as if nothing not included in Matasović could be
                                      >> >> Celtic), on the other side You are taking everything You want - You
                                      >> >> even stretch Ligurian's boundaries according to Your pleasure - as
                                      >> >> definite proof of Ligurianness, clearly two exceedingly different
                                      >> >> criteria: everything can be labeled as Ligurian if only it occurs in
                                      >> >> Western Europe, but nothing can be labeled as Celtic if only it
                                      >> >> doesn't occur in Matasović. Either You take a coherent position or
                                      >> >> it's useless to continue
                                      >>
                                      >> > DGK:
                                      >> > All right, I will try not to take the position of Lepontic for granted
                                      >> > (as
                                      >> > most Celtologists do!) any more.
                                      >> >
                                      >>
                                      >> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      >>
                                      >> Do You most Celtologist take the position of Lepontic as a Celtic
                                      >> language for granted, don't You? (Just to avoid misunderstandings,
                                      >> it's so difficult to avoid them)


                                      > DGK:
                                      > I think "think" or something dropped out of the question. Yes, I think most
                                      > Celtologists today take for granted the assignment of Lepontic to Celtic.
                                      > To his credit, Matasovic' proceeds with caution, observing the flimsiness of
                                      > basing linguistic assignments entirely upon personal names.
                                      >
                                      > DGK


                                      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                      (I first wanted to write "Do You think", then I added "don't You?"
                                      without deleting initial "Do" and "think" dropped out; I beg Your
                                      pardon)
                                    • dgkilday57
                                      ... Your memory is better than mine. I had forgotten the absurd lengths to which Harold went in order to Celticize Homer and Hellas. Now that you have
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jun 20, 2012
                                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > 2012/6/12, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                                        > >
                                        > > DGK:
                                        > > I am reminded of this "Harold" character on sci.lang
                                        > > who etymologized almost all European river-names as Celtic.
                                        >
                                        > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
                                        >
                                        > A character who writes "Homer, whose real name is Kimer which means
                                        > he is a Cimmerian Celt" or "Ellas-Gallas, the name for Greece" is for
                                        > You the same as one who, as in my case, has published a monograph on
                                        > Valtline with 60,000 PIE reconstructed forms...
                                        > I thought You and I were more similar to each other than to Harold,
                                        > but if You feel as You have written I can only conclude that You have
                                        > a tendency to put whoever disagrees with You in a melting pot of
                                        > Pan-celticists.

                                        Your memory is better than mine. I had forgotten the absurd lengths to which Harold went in order to Celticize Homer and Hellas. Now that you have explained your procedure in detail, I see that you construct Celtic etymologies only on "Celtic soil", so a better comparison is with Werner Guth, who demands only Germanic etymologies on "Germanic soil" (and indeed discards Celtic material).

                                        > 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)

                                        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.

                                        DGK
                                      • Max Dashu
                                        Ilija Casule of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, says that a language spoken by about 90,000 people in a remote area of Pakistan is Indo-European in
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jun 21, 2012
                                          Ilija Casule of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, says that a language spoken by about 90,000 people in a remote area of Pakistan is Indo-European in origin.

                                          http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155454736/pakistans-burushaski-language-finds-new-relatives

                                          "the vocabulary that corresponds with Indo-European is core vocabulary, names of body parts, basic verbs, basic adjectives and also grammatical endings... And it corresponds systematically. That's the most important part. Every word you find has to have a systematic correspondence with all the rest of Indo-European."

                                          Thoughts?

                                          Max Dashu
                                        • Rick McCallister
                                          What I find strange about Casule s claim is his insistence that Burushaski is a modern form of Phrygian, which he implies is somehow associated with the
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jun 21, 2012
                                            What I find strange about Casule's claim is his insistence that Burushaski is a modern form of Phrygian, which he implies is somehow associated with the Hellenic Bactrian civilization. He gives an example which he compares with Greek uranos --but which easily could be compared with Sanskrit varuna, etc. I know virtually nothing about Phrygian but I'd look first at local Indo-Iranian and even Tokharian before I'd consider Phrygian. Do we even have any archeological evidence of Phrygians in that area?
                                          • Rick McCallister
                                            Here s the original claim. When IJES comes out, please share the conclusions with the rest of us.
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jun 21, 2012

                                              Here's the original claim. When IJES comes out, please share the conclusions with the rest of us.



                                              http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2012/06/17/cracking-the-code-on-the-origins-of-a-new-european-language/

                                              Cracking the code on the origins of a new European language

                                              17 June 2012
                                              There is strong evidence to support the discovery of a new European language.
                                              Macquarie University historical linguistics researcher, Associate Professor Ilija Casule, discovered that the language, known as Burushaski, which is spoken by about 90,000 people who reside in a remote area of North West Pakistan, is Indo-European in origin, not Indo-Iranian.
                                              Professor Casule’s discovery, which has now been verified by a number of the world’s top linguists, has excited linguistics experts around the world. An entire issue of the eminent international linguistics journal The Journal of Indo-European Studies is devoted to a discussion of his findings later this month.
                                              More than 50 eminent linguists have tried over many years to determine the genetic relationship of Burushaski. But it was Casule’s painstaking research, based on a comprehensive grammatical, phonological, lexical and semantic analysis, which established that the Burushaski language is in fact an Indo-European language most likely descended from one of the ancient Balkan languages. Professor Casule believes that language is most probably ancient Phrygian.
                                              The Phrygians migrated from Macedonia to Anatolia (today part of Turkey) and were famous for their legendary kings who figure prominently in Greek mythology such as King Midas who turned whatever he touched into gold. They later migrated further east, reaching India. Indeed, according to ancient legends of the Burushashki people, they are descendants of Alexander the Great.
                                              Tracing the historical path of a language is no easy task. Professor Casule said he became interested in the origins of Burushaski more than 20 years ago.
                                              “People knew of its existence but its Indo-European affiliation was overlooked and it was not analysed correctly. It is considered a language isolate – not related to any other language in the world in much the same way that the Basque language is classified as a language isolate,” he said.
                                              The remoteness of the area that was independent until the early 1970s when it became part of Pakistan, ensured Burushaski retained certain grammatical and lexical features that led Professor Casule to conclude it is a North-Western Indo-European language, specifically of the Paleobalkanic language group and that it corresponds most closely with Phrygian.
                                              Dr Casule’s work is groundbreaking, not only because it has implications for all the Indo-European language groups, but also provides a new model for figuring out the origins of isolate languages – where they reside in the linguistic family tree and how they developed and blended with other languages to form a new language.
                                              Image: Map of Burushashki speaking areas
                                            • Max Dashu
                                              Yes, agreed. Maybe this is his attempt to split the difference with Burushaski claims of descent from Alexander the great. But that s not historical
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Jun 21, 2012
                                                Yes, agreed. Maybe this is his attempt to split the difference with Burushaski claims of descent from Alexander the great. But that's not historical linguistics. 

                                                Max

                                                 

                                                What I find strange about Casule's claim is his insistence that Burushaski is a modern form of Phrygian, which he implies is somehow associated with the Hellenic Bactrian civilization. He gives an example which he compares with Greek uranos --but which easily could be compared with Sanskrit varuna, etc. I know virtually nothing about Phrygian but I'd look first at local Indo-Iranian and even Tokharian before I'd consider Phrygian. Do we even have any archeological evidence of Phrygians in that area?



                                              • Tavi
                                                ... language spoken by about 90,000 people in a remote area of Pakistan is Indo-European in origin. ...
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Jun 21, 2012
                                                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Max Dashu <maxdashu@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Ilija Casule of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, says that a
                                                  language spoken by about 90,000 people in a remote area of Pakistan is
                                                  Indo-European in origin.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155454736/pakistans-burushaski-language-fi\
                                                  nds-new-relatives
                                                  >
                                                  > "the vocabulary that corresponds with Indo-European is core
                                                  vocabulary, names of body parts, basic verbs, basic adjectives and also
                                                  grammatical endings... And it corresponds systematically. That's the
                                                  most important part. Every word you find has to have a systematic
                                                  correspondence with all the rest of Indo-European."
                                                  >
                                                  > Thoughts?
                                                  >
                                                  Despite the press article, Cassule's theory isn't new and it's flawed:
                                                  Burushaski can't be an IE language because it haven't got a bit of IE
                                                  morphology.
                                                • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                                                  ... Bhrihskwobhloukstroy: Frankensteinianism - in itself neither good nor bad as far as Linguistics is concerned - emerges only in Your model and in every
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jun 21, 2012
                                                    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
                                                  • Etherman23
                                                    ... While it s difficult to say for sure without seeing Casule s argument, from what I ve seen of both lexicon and morphology there s no obvious relationship.
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Jun 22, 2012
                                                      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Max Dashu <maxdashu@> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Ilija Casule of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, says that a
                                                      > language spoken by about 90,000 people in a remote area of Pakistan is
                                                      > Indo-European in origin.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155454736/pakistans-burushaski-language-fi\
                                                      > nds-new-relatives
                                                      > >
                                                      > > "the vocabulary that corresponds with Indo-European is core
                                                      > vocabulary, names of body parts, basic verbs, basic adjectives and also
                                                      > grammatical endings... And it corresponds systematically. That's the
                                                      > most important part. Every word you find has to have a systematic
                                                      > correspondence with all the rest of Indo-European."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Thoughts?
                                                      > >
                                                      > Despite the press article, Cassule's theory isn't new and it's flawed:
                                                      > Burushaski can't be an IE language because it haven't got a bit of IE
                                                      > morphology.

                                                      While it's difficult to say for sure without seeing Casule's argument, from what I've seen of both lexicon and morphology there's no obvious relationship.
                                                    • Tavi
                                                      ... IE ... from what I ve seen of both lexicon and morphology there s no obvious relationship. ... Even if a significant percentage of his lexical comparisons
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Jun 22, 2012
                                                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > > Despite the press article, Cassule's theory isn't new and it's
                                                        flawed:
                                                        > > Burushaski can't be an IE language because it haven't got a bit of
                                                        IE
                                                        > > morphology.
                                                        >
                                                        > While it's difficult to say for sure without seeing Casule's argument,
                                                        from what I've seen of both lexicon and morphology there's no obvious
                                                        relationship.
                                                        >
                                                        Even if a significant percentage of his lexical comparisons were
                                                        correct, by no means it wouldn't imply a genetic relationship (actually,
                                                        I consider Burushaski to be a Vasco-Caucasian language). Interestingly,
                                                        Cassule's proposed PIE-Burushaski sound correspondences would classify
                                                        the supposed IE lexicon layer in Burushaski as Paleo-Balkanic, and more
                                                        especifically as being similar to Phyrgian.

                                                        However, given the role of the Balkans in the European Neolithic, I
                                                        think possible these lexical isoglosses could be explained by a VC
                                                        adstrate in Paleo-Balkanic IE. This would be also the case of Whitaker's
                                                        Euphratic, a pretended pre-Sumerian substrate IE language.
                                                      • Tavi
                                                        ... in ... Altaic ... brown ... By contrast, Germanic has *gW (= traditional gWh) *w in Kurganic words. I d also lower the chronology of the
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Dec 3, 2012
                                                          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                                                          bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@ wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > > In sum, we have together come to this provisional conclusion:
                                                          > > Ancient Ligurian exhibited an albeit limited number of phonological
                                                          > > innovations from PIE;
                                                          > > */gwh/ > /b/ could be non-Celtic, but it's disputed;
                                                          >
                                                          > To the best of my knowledge, this can't be Celtic nor anything else.
                                                          > Leaving aside the *outdated* reconstruction of series III stops as
                                                          > "voiced aspirated", we've got gW > b in some paleo-IE dialect(s), as
                                                          in
                                                          > IE *g^we:r- 'wild animal' > Germanic *bi:ro:n 'bear' and related
                                                          Altaic
                                                          > forms. The reduced form with b- would possibly "reappear" in the
                                                          'brown'
                                                          > and 'beaver' (reduplicated) words.
                                                          >
                                                          By contrast, Germanic has *gW (= traditional gWh) > *w in Kurganic
                                                          words. I'd also lower the chronology of the Paleo-IE/Altaic node to the
                                                          Neolithic in account of lexical correspondences.
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.