tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post863568449305998323..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Linguistics: more on the shared IE-Basque word for bear (*h₂ŕ̥tḱos and hartz)Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-24795496745419953242017-04-12T12:37:11.945+02:002017-04-12T12:37:11.945+02:00Sounds interesting, Simon. Unfortunately I don'...Sounds interesting, Simon. Unfortunately I don't know enough of Celtic or Brythonic to be able to issue a judgment. <br /><br />My impression anyhow is that the /h/ (aspiration) is original (at least it seems so, when we compare with PIE *h₂ŕ̥tḱ(-os)) and that the /ø/ (loss of aspiration) is derived. In other cases the /h/ may have fluctuated to /k/ (or /g/), inversely to the conjecture of Mitxelena (i.e. we have a Roman era "aherbelts" and a modern/medieval "akerbeltz"), but it's also possible that these phonetic fluctuations may have happened bidirectionally, depending on geographies and periods. <br /><br />As I believe I already mentioned, I suspect that Iberian Vasconic tended to /ø/, while continental one tended to /h/, but there are exceptions anyhow because the speculated divide maybe wasn't a simple line and because it should not follow the modern political border in any case. I understand that there must have been cases in the past of very complex linguistic variance, after all there were no standards, no literary formal language, no academies. A modern example is the pronunciation of the letter "j" in Basque, which follows no logical pattern: in some towns and individual speeches it is /i/ (as should be classically), in many others it is /kh/ instead (because of Castilian influence no doubt), and there is no "line": it's a most complex archipelago instead. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-19009484981654606582017-04-12T10:49:59.033+02:002017-04-12T10:49:59.033+02:00Just throwing out an idea (feel free to shoot it d...Just throwing out an idea (feel free to shoot it down) but we should perhaps consider the possibility of a Welsh-like aspirational mutation having been in use among speakers of earlier Basque languages. For example, although the Welsh word for Bear is Arth, "Our bear" and "Their bear" in Welsh are "Ein harth" and "Eu harth" respectively due to Aspirational mutation. A comparison could be drawn in this regard with the Welsh number "Ugain" (Twenty) and its Basque equivalent "Hogei".Simon Dydahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13339093373638862985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-25792643020210745352011-07-04T18:24:11.436+02:002011-07-04T18:24:11.436+02:00So you're basically saying that, because you d...So you're basically saying that, because you don't want to be perceived as vasco-Iberist or as someone who uses Basque as some sort of "dictionary" to help decipher Iberian, you renounce to attempt to solve the Iberian puzzle and prefer to leave things in the muddy darkness, where maybe you are comfortable enough as to speculate on proto-something vague and remote connections. <br /><br />Beats my common sense: it's the kind of thing someone not straightforward and sincere would do. I'm not interested in that kind of convoluted courtly or scholarly games and, if you are, you are not interested in debating with me.<br /><br />Whatever the case, we have a lot of proposed connections between Basque and Iberian, most of them sounding quite good. And that's more than we can say for any other language or language family worldwide, with the partial exception of the Vasconic substrate loanwords in Celtic, which are many many.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-39132206780014545552011-07-04T11:37:50.358+02:002011-07-04T11:37:50.358+02:00Unfortunately we don't know the precise meanin...Unfortunately we don't know the precise meaning of these Iberian words beside their similarity to Basque words.<br /><br />The only exception is <b>ban</b> 'one, this'.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-50328579174357319692011-07-04T11:19:06.063+02:002011-07-04T11:19:06.063+02:00Hahaha! And all the numbers too. Yeeepa!
A mere c...Hahaha! And all the numbers too. Yeeepa!<br /><br />A mere coincidence no doubt. -.-Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-21613056204812723572011-07-04T11:07:30.627+02:002011-07-04T11:07:30.627+02:00We still know Gaulish a lot more than Iberian.
B...We still know Gaulish a lot more than Iberian. <br /><br />BTW, Basque is full of Iberian loanwords, so it's no wonder amateur people thinks they're close relatives.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-20661434347764913632011-07-04T11:05:38.445+02:002011-07-04T11:05:38.445+02:00@Gioello: thanks for your opinion on the "Gau...@Gioello: thanks for your opinion on the "Gaulish" inscription. I appreciate specially your indication of the script being Etruscan, the issue of how and why those phonetic changes and such and also your recognition of the language as unclearly Gaulish if at all. <br /><br />Still the original text is not quite as transcribed but even more blurry. <br /><br />I do not think you have any reason to claim an Italian origin for Celts. In fact I do not think Italics are ultimately from Italy either. You tend to want everything to be Italian and that's the heart and not the cold mind speaking. Beware!<br /><br />"It isn’t said that Ligurians were Celts. They could be an autonomous branch of IE"...<br /><br />Actually those who claim Ligurian as IE tend to think so. However the likely fact is that Ligurian was, if anything, related to Iberian and Basque, probably a remnant of the Cardium Pottery or Magdalenian languages. This I think mostly based on archaeology: there's no IE intrusion in the historical Ligurian territory before Massilia and Rome. Like Basques further West, they probably regrouped around the mountains, in that case the Western Alps and Ligurian mountains.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-67035057518023576122011-07-04T10:57:27.530+02:002011-07-04T10:57:27.530+02:00@Octavià: We all know that Gaulish was not a liter...@Octavià: We all know that Gaulish was not a literate language and that has left maybe a large number of scattered inscriptions like Iberian and such but not enough to clarify all we'd like not even remotely. It is not like even the most knowledgeable expert in Gaulish (assuming it was a single language, what I doubt) could speak and write as the people who know Latin or Sumerian do, almost as fluent natives. <br /><br />Besides inscriptions and toponimy there are some longer texts but they are not well understood often. So...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-1581840828000914612011-07-04T10:38:26.705+02:002011-07-04T10:38:26.705+02:00How do you know that "the language is the sam...<i>How do you know that "the language is the same than other Gaulish inscriptions"? It is not like we know too much about ancient Gaulish, really.</i><br />I think you're misinformed, for there're amny other inscriptions, as well glosses, toponymy, etc. This is why I've referred you to Delamarre's book.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-12639789275036163162011-07-04T10:17:22.523+02:002011-07-04T10:17:22.523+02:00TEVO-XTONION
The peoples of North Italy used an Et...TEVO-XTONION<br />The peoples of North Italy used an Etruscan alphabet and the Etruscan language didn’t know sound consonants, then “tevo-xtonion” is for “deuo-ghdonion” or similar (a Genitive Plural of a Dvandva-compound: see K. H. Schmidt, How to define Celtiberian Archaisms?, Palaeohispanica 10 (2010, p.482).<br />The language of Vercelli (Italy) is very conservative. If it is Celtic, it is an ancient Celtic. Lepontian is one of the oldest form of Celtic or Pre-Celtic. I have always supported the theory that the most ancient form of Celtic language found all over the world is the “Stele di Novilara” (the Marche, Italy).<br />I have always supported the theory that it isn’t said that Celts are from Central Europe. They could have come also from Italy, where the brother peoples (Italic Peoples) remained.<br />It isn’t said that Ligurians were Celts. They could be an autonomous branch of IE ( the river Polcevera comes from *porķo-bhera, with your word *porķo- that isn’t only a “pig” but also a” fish”). The last findings (see 1000 Genome project) are demonstrating that R-U152 is in origin above all Ligurian and the Tuscans tested, the only Italians, are the most ancient and varied).<br />All these data is in favour of my theory of an Italian refugium of R1b and other haplogroups (Y and mt) and of Indo-European languages, at least the western ones.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578860964923773647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9976221670886086262011-07-04T10:12:01.809+02:002011-07-04T10:12:01.809+02:00"If the language is the same than other Gauli..."If the language is the same than other Gaulish inscriptions, then it must be Gaulish".<br /><br />That is more a question than any answer. How do you know that "the language is the same than other Gaulish inscriptions"? It is not like we know too much about ancient Gaulish, really.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86766816794253463002011-07-04T10:09:04.044+02:002011-07-04T10:09:04.044+02:00Actually if you read the text directly it's no...Actually if you read the text directly it's not all that clear (see <a rel="nofollow">here</a>). It uses an anomalous script I can't clearly identify and some letters are erased. <br /><br />... KOLIO<br />KOT--TOMTEVOX<br />TONI--NEV<br /><br />Where the "-" indicate erased letters, some of which are critical to the reading of "xtonion".<br /><br />Other readings are possible in any case. Not any solid evidence. I'd dare say after this that not any evidence at all. <br /><br />Question everything.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-48052702669012673052011-07-04T09:57:20.204+02:002011-07-04T09:57:20.204+02:00The question is that "man" is not the sa...<i>The question is that "man" is not the same as "person, human being". Man is "human male" and only by denial of femininity it can become 'human in general'.</i><br />On the contrary, the expression "human being" was coined in modern times to avoid the ambiguity of "man".<br /><br />But surely the ancient Basque were sexists, bceause they applied the word to males, not humans in general. :-)<br /><br /><i>The question anyhow is: is "TOSO KOTE ATOM TEVO-XTONION KONEU" Gaulish? I don't know enough to say, so I throw this to people more familiar with Celtic languages.</i><br />If the language is the same than other Gaulish inscriptions, then it must be Gaulish.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-56954847073335617272011-07-04T09:32:59.740+02:002011-07-04T09:32:59.740+02:00"... because the inscription is written in Ga..."... because the inscription is written in Gaulish".<br /><br />Might be but how do I know? You have provided no evidence, no data that we can scrutinize, for example a transliteration of the whole inscription (probably not too long) or a link to wherever it is posted online. <br /><br />Don't worry, I did YOUR WORK and found it. It reads:<br /><br />AKISIOS ARKATOKO[K]MATEREKOS TOSO KOTE ATOM TEVO-XTONION KONEU<br /><br />... accompanied of this Latin inscription: <br /><br />FINIS CAMPO QUEM DEDIT ACISIUS ARGANTOMATERECUS COMUNEM DEIS ET HOMINIBUS ITA UT LAPIDE[S] IIII STATUTI SUNT <br /><br />Allegedly <a href="http://projetbabel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16622" rel="nofollow">they mean the same</a>.<br /><br />"Only in sexist societies 'man' equals 'male'".<br /><br />The question is that "man" is not the same as "person, human being". Man is "human male" and only by denial of femininity it can become 'human in general'. <br /><br />As for sexism, I understand that using "man" for "person" or "human being" is sexist, as it denies women, makes them linguistically a mere annex or extension of men. And go to your district's feminist association but they are going to say the same, I am minimally educated in such matters, you know. <br /><br />The question anyhow is: is "TOSO KOTE ATOM TEVO-XTONION KONEU" Gaulish? I don't know enough to say, so I throw this to people more familiar with Celtic languages.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-14471116284874716842011-07-04T09:13:09.976+02:002011-07-04T09:13:09.976+02:00In page 162, comes *gdonyo- as 'human, person&...<i>In page 162, comes *gdonyo- as 'human, person' (not 'man').</i><br />Yes, that's right. Only in sexist societies 'man' equals 'male'.<br /><br /><i>The initial asterisk indicates that it is a reconstructed word and not an attested one.</i><br />It's no wonder because this is a Proto-Celtic dictionary.<br /><br /><i>It is related to several real words in various Celtic languages but what matters to us (as it was claimed it was Gaulish) is the suffix -xtonio, attested in Vercelli (Piemonte, Italy), which was the capital of a Ligurian tribe (the Libici or Lebecilli). The author proposes that -xtonio should be read as -gdonio... but the author seems to be already many miles away from reality, since he seems to believe that the Ligures spoke Gaulish.</i><br />It's not a matter of "belief", but of actual evidence, because the inscription is written in Gaulish.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-19944892157525240952011-07-04T09:12:08.570+02:002011-07-04T09:12:08.570+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-12943978169606084982011-07-04T08:42:15.580+02:002011-07-04T08:42:15.580+02:00My apoligies if you were offended for anything I s...My apoligies if you were offended for anything I said. Whatever the case, even if the manual you uploaded is surely of interest, I am unsatisfied.<br /><br />In page 162, comes *gdonyo- as 'human, person' (not 'man'). The initial asterisk indicates that it is a reconstructed word and not an attested one. It is not Gaulish not any other attested Celtic but theoretical proto-Celtic. <br /><br />It is related to several real words in various Celtic languages but what matters to us (as it was claimed it was Gaulish) is the suffix -xtonio, attested in Vercelli (Piemonte, Italy), which was the capital of a <b>Ligurian</b> tribe (the Libici or Lebecilli). The author proposes that -xtonio should be read as -gdonio... but the author seems to be already many miles away from reality, since he seems to believe that the Ligures spoke Gaulish.<br /><br />This is the problem with resorting to authority: authority is often wrong. Always question everything.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89950463740793706362011-07-04T08:18:44.356+02:002011-07-04T08:18:44.356+02:00In despite of your abusive tone, I've uploaded...In despite of your abusive tone, I've uploaded a scanned copy of Matasović's Proto-Celtic dictionary to Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2u9JXUPX7SUMGViZWMyMTEtNDIzYi00MTMzLWFjZTMtNmM0NjUzNjNhNTE0&hl=caOctavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-53270247154728684102011-07-04T00:42:31.644+02:002011-07-04T00:42:31.644+02:00"I refer you to Delamarre's book".
..."I refer you to Delamarre's book".<br /><br />That's like nothing to me because I do not own the book. So please provide the context: location(s) of the inscription and whatever other relevant details. <br /><br />Else I must think that you are cheating again and making claims that are not relevant: half truths are worse than plain lies. <br /><br />"Because this is a completely different root meaning 'male'".<br /><br />Cheating again.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-30742683110020283672011-07-03T21:29:04.558+02:002011-07-03T21:29:04.558+02:00Today is my birthday, so I'm in a happy mood. ...Today is my birthday, so I'm in a happy mood. :-)<br /><br /><i>This is interesting but why you insist in always forcing things to be from IE to Basque, even when the opposite is much more likely? Because you have prejudices: the typical prejudice that wants to believe that Basque was always just spoken more or less in its current extension.</i><br />No, the problem is your actual knowledge of IE languages is poor, so you fail to recognize a genuine IE root every now and then.<br /><br /><i>As far as I understand (because of the words in Hindi, Armenian, etc.) *sū- is the true PIE word and porkos (porcus, pig) instead a borrowing.</i><br />Yes, that's right.<br /><br /><i>o we have the (1) IE sus line; we have the (2) SE European porkos line (of possible NE Caucasian origin, similar words attested in this family); we have the (3) cerdo/zerri SW European/Iberian specific line, and we have the (4) urde Basque-specific line.</i><br />There're still another 'pig' only attested in Eastern languages and presumably borrowed into Kartvelian: <b>*g´hor-</b> 'young pig'. <br /><br />IMHO, Also (4) and (1) have the same origin.<br /><br /><i>You haven't still explained how you managed to change *wHārƛ̣_wǝ into *dʒa[r]q’V. A root that you claim to be ancestral to "urde" into one that you claim ancestral to "zerri" and "cerdo".</i><br />These are two <i>different</i> roots.<br /><br /><i>It is quite solid stuff, I understand, though how porkos/porcus migrated to English pig is something yet to evaluate (direct Latin loan?)</i><br />English <i>pig</i> has a totally different etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pig<br /><br /><i>and also how porkos migrated from Greece to Latin may need some consideration (but Latin keeps the original IE sus, so porcus is most likely a Greek secondary loan).</i><br />No. Greek and Latin have their own native reflexes of both words.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-92070138950111926652011-07-03T21:16:39.244+02:002011-07-03T21:16:39.244+02:00In many IE languages, the word 'man' is de...In many IE languages, the word 'man' is derived from 'earth', in the sense of 'earthly'. That's a fact.<br /><br /><i>Please! What do we know now of "Gallic “gdonio-“"? Nigh to nothing (Octaviá please release more info: context specially, location too).</i><br />I refer you to Delamarre's book.<br /><br /><i>But worse: we know that proto-Celtic is *wir (>fir and variants in Goidelic), related to Latin vir and PIE *wiHrós. All these cannot produce "gdonio-".</i><br />Because this is a completely different root meaning 'male'.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60599686305293730112011-07-03T20:29:14.215+02:002011-07-03T20:29:14.215+02:00PS- I do not see where Mallory claims that 'ma...PS- I do not see where Mallory claims that 'man' derives from 'earth', definitively not in page 120. Can you point us to the right page if it exists at all?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-78948947024952386352011-07-03T20:26:34.799+02:002011-07-03T20:26:34.799+02:00"But that Latin “bis” derives from “*dwi-s” l..."But that Latin “bis” derives from “*dwi-s” like “bellum” from “*dwellum” and that these are Indo-European words is well known by linguists".<br /><br />There's no PIE *dwi-s, that's my whole point: there is a PIE *dwos and that is it. <br /><br />"That “gdonio-“ does mean “man” in Gallic was said by Octavià and I must believe to him"...<br /><br />If I believed everything someone said... The first rule of the surviving free thinker is not to believe all you read. Octavià has said many things anyhow that do not seem correct or are doubtful, so I'm asking for further info in any case so I can make up my mind with knowledged of what is actually going on: how many times and in what contexts is this word attested, why do some think it means "man", etc. It's not like there Gaulish is much better known than, say, Eteocretan... other than by the fact of being related to living Celtic languages such as Irish, Welsh, etc.<br /><br />"Greek χθόνιος is the adjective of χθών and does mean what you say, but from the word χθών “earth”, as I have said before, derive in many Indo-European languages the words for “man”"...<br /><br />I call to question the accuracy and wisdom of such speculation. Demonstrate it before you continue with this, please. IMO "earth" and "man" are totally unrelated words (logically) and that is also the case in all IE languages I know of.<br /><br />"For the link “earth”/”man” in the IE languages see: J.P. Mallory and D:Q Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, 2006, page 120". <br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=pH7emh7sv50C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Google books</a>. <br /><br />He says that the PIE word for earth is *déĝhöm, while <a href="http://newstar.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&first=1&on_proto=on&text_proto=&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&on_meaning=on&text_meaning=earth&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&on_hitt=on&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&ic_hitt=on&on_tokh=on&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&ic_tokh=on&on_ind=on&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&ic_ind=on&on_avest=on&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&ic_avest=on&on_iran=on&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&ic_iran=on&on_arm=on&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&ic_arm=on&on_greek=on&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&ic_greek=on&on_slav=on&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&ic_slav=on&on_balt=on&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&ic_balt=on&on_germ=on&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&ic_germ=on&on_lat=on&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&ic_lat=on&on_ital=on&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&ic_ital=on&on_celt=on&text_celt=&method_celt=substring&ic_celt=on&on_alb=on&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&ic_alb=on&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rusmean=on&on_refer=on&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&ic_refer=on&on_comment=on&text_comment=&method_comment=substring&ic_comment=on&text_any=&method_any=substring&sort=proto&ic_any=on" rel="nofollow">Starostin claims</a> a bunch of different roots for each different language (what a joke!):*bhudhm-/*bhudhn- or *er or *dg'hem- or *tēres- or *mag(')h- or *tal-(/-e-) or *ghem-. According to that PIE had some 7 different "roots" for the same meaning of earth, what is ridiculous but allows for all kind of nonsense claims.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89962416553355663382011-07-03T20:05:04.615+02:002011-07-03T20:05:04.615+02:00Maju, I have no prejudice against Basque. I have s...Maju, I have no prejudice against Basque. I have said to you in another occasion that I have sympathy towards them. I am only searching for truth, in linguistics like in genetics.<br />1) I haven’t said that there is a link between Basque “bi-“ and Latin. The words that Basque took from Latin are well known and we can see an Etymological Dictionary. As you are seeing, I am almost sceptical about all these etymologies. But that Latin “bis” derives from “*dwi-s” like “bellum” from “*dwellum” and that these are Indo-European words is well known by linguists.<br />2) That “gdonio-“ does mean “man” in Gallic was said by Octavià and I must believe to him: I haven’t the dictionary he cited and from this I did my hypothesis.<br />3) Greek χθόνιος is the adjective of χθών and does mean what you say, but from the word χθών “earth”, as I have said before, derive in many Indo-European languages the words for “man”, and the same could have happened for the Gallic “gdonio-“ (always believing to what Octavià says).<br />4) As I have said, the IE root for χθών is “dheģhom-/ģhedhom-“, a word that suffered a metathesis: we have the most ancient (in the meaning that were the first to separate from the others) IE languages (Hittite and Tocharian) which continue the first form and the others the latter. From the latter derive many IE words for “man” in the meaning I have explained before. Of course IE languages had many other words for “man”, one was wiHrós (like you say), but also “Hner (Greek ανήρ, Skt nàr-, but also Latin, from Osco-Umbrian, Nero), so diffused also in Euphratic. <br />5) For the link “earth”/”man” in the IE languages see: J.P. Mallory and D:Q Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, 2006, page 120.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578860964923773647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-24905346847446776652011-07-03T16:24:33.623+02:002011-07-03T16:24:33.623+02:00@Gioello:
The "twice" form does not see...@Gioello:<br /><br />The "twice" form does not seem to demonstrate anything: it's clearly from 'two' and suffix '-ice' but the /u/ sound is preserved as w, much like the /u/ sound of duos is preserved in 'duunviros' or the more common 'dual'. In both cases the /o/ is lost but the /u/ is retained. <br /><br />And in order to obtain 'bi' form 'duos', you need a massive sound change and also that Basques would abandon their original word for 2 and take a lesser "Latin" prefix (and not the true form "duos" or similar) instead. It is all extremely unlikely... a practical impossibility in fact. Much more logical is to think that early (proto-)Latin speakers took that particle somewhere: in Central Europe before flowing into Italy or more likely in Italy itself.<br /><br />"“gdonio-“ remembers me Greek “khthonos”, the man like who is linked to the Earth".<br /><br />It is "khthonios" and <a href="http://messagenetcommresearch.com/myths/ppt/Khthonios_1.html" rel="nofollow">it means</a>: "Of or pertaining to the inhabitants or gods on the Underworld" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonic" rel="nofollow">or</a> "in, under, or beneath the earth".<br /><br />Nothing about "man" anywhere and it is an adjective, not a noun. <br /><br />Sorry but truly a bad connection... at least if "gdonio-" has indeed to mean "man", as Octaviá says, and not "underworldish". <br /><br />Octavia said in this regard: "The Greek and Celtic words are regularly derived from PIE"... <br /><br />I must say that I do not think so (see above) and we are probably before a Basque borrowing and maybe convergence with the proto-Celtic *wir (as in Welsh gwr). The intrusion of initial /g/, of /z/ (in Breton "gwaz"), of /n/ in "Gaulish" gdonio- (if related at all), all suggest influence of Basque 'giza' and 'gizon'. <br /><br />Also (for all), please notice the similarly constructed word jaun (lord, sir, mister), from 'jas' (lineage, caste, clan) and suffix '-on' (possibly meaning "good" or "beside": 'ondo', as happens in gizon). It may be also involved. <br /><br />"I think a little likely that Basque “gizon” derives from Gallic “gdonio-“".<br /><br />Please! What do we know now of "Gallic “gdonio-“"? Nigh to nothing (Octaviá please release more info: context specially, location too). <br /><br />But worse: we know that proto-Celtic is *wir (>fir and variants in Goidelic), related to Latin vir and PIE *wiHrós. All these cannot produce "gdonio-". So "gdonio-" is not any genuine IE word but some borrowing or whatever else. A possible (and I'd dare say likely) source for this borrowing is Basque "gizon", as you well say, attested since Antiquity.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com