> > Seeing that the Belgae spoke a Gallo-Brittonic dialect, Uiros would be
> > nominative & genitive masc. sing. for "man" (compare Old Welsh gur, Old
> > Irish fer).
>I'll do that here:
>The GUROS HYPOTHESIS:
>To reach VIROS from the Old Welsh GUROS, you must first HYPOTHESISE a
>mutation in the vowel of the first syllable.
It's Old Welsh GUR - NOT GUROS! That was quite clear in my statement - so
clean off those glasses next time you read one of my posts.
As anyone that has studied the history of the Brittonic languages knows,
initial Gw- (written gu- in medieval Welsh, Cornish & Breton) was a rather
late development (+/- 7th century AD) from an earlier initial U- (thus we
find in the 6th century AD Gildas mentioning a certain Uortipori - from an
earlier Brittonic form *Uorteporix - but he turns up in a Welsh genealogical
tract of the 10th century as Guortepir). This is NOT an hypothesis - it is
cold, hard FACT.
>'I' and 'U' quite often appear
>as variants of the same vowel in European languages past and present,
>so that can be accomplished in one HYPOTHETICAL step. As well as this,
>simultaneously with the vowel change or before it or after it, you have to
>HYPOTHESISE that either its first letter somehow mutated from V-G, or there
>existed a common ancestor of GUR and VIR. To get from VIROS to a
>HYPOTHETICAL GIROS you have to HYPOTHESISE at least two more mutations,
>as via GWI to 'WI (for which the Roman spelling is V) because as far as I
>know (and there are gaps in my knowledge) there are no cases of G mutating
>directly to V between or within any two languages that I've ever studied.
You just don't get it....G- didn't mutate to V-, a consonantal |w| (written
as U- in Latin orthography) became GU- in Brittonic - not an uncommon
development - it is also found in certain dialects of Germanic, as well as
in some Romance dialects. As far as the -i- in Gallo-Brittonic uiros is
concerned, it coalesced with the -u- and disappeared in Welsh (thus
Gall-Brit. uiros gives Old Welsh gur, Modern Welsh gwr) - but note that it
is still present in the plural form gwyr (Gallo-Brittonic *uiri).
>And then you must come up with a HYPOTHESIS to explain why a coin would
>the word MAN (nominative singular) or MAN'S/OF A MAN (genitive singular)
>printed on it.
Guess what? We find plenty of coins with nominative singular forms on them.
If you actually had any clue about what you were discussing, you would know
>THE FER HYPOTHESIS:
>To reach VIROS from the Old Irish FER you must HYPOTHESISE, as John does,
>that -OS may be a 'name-ending', as some Celtic names ending in -OS have
What don't you understand about the fact that VIROS does not come from Old
Irish Fer or Old Welsh Gur?? Don't you get the fact that VIROS was recorded
CENTURIES UPON CENTURIES before OIr Fer and OW Gur took form? Can't you
graps the fact that Gallo-Brittonic Uiros, OIr _Fer_ and OW _Gur_ all come
from a Common Celtic *wiros?
BTW, we know from the comparative study of every other Indo European
language that the -os in uiros is the nominative masculine singular, or
genitive masculine singular of an o-stem root.
>Then you must use the eclipsised form of its initial consonant to get VER-
>(for which there is some support in that there's a viable translaton of
>Vercingetorix into a Goidelic form of Gaelic that depends on this same
>Then you must HYPOTHESISE a shift in the vowel from E to I, a common
>That's 3 hypotheses. Hypothesis = guess.
>Then you have to HYPOTHESISE the existence of a Belgic man or woman with a
>HYPOTHETICAL Gaulish name which according to your HYPOTHESIS means MAN +
A side not here:
It's obvious that you have picked up a couple of linguistic terms some
place, but you are applying them all haphazardly, and you are blatantly
ignorant of the methodology of linguistics. Please bear in mind that I,
myslef, am NOT a professional linguist - I am a hobbyist such as yourself -
but _I_ have actually gone out and spent a lot of time and money acquiring
and studying up to date and well-respected treatises on the subjects of
Celtic & Indo European linguistics - I have also corresponded with some top
scholars in these fields, and have asked them many questions so that I could
better understand their work. From this I have developed a very good working
knowledge of linguistics, which enables me to speak with some authority on
matters such as these - but I know when I am out of my league and when to
defer to the superior knowledge of the professionals. I believe that this is
the difference between you and I.
>THE VIROS HYPOTHESIS:
>VIROS is VIROS without any hypothesising at all.
>VIROS is a known form of the contemporary Latin for 'soldiers' or 'men' as
>the direct object of a verb, without any hypothetical mutations.
Yeah?? So where's your verb?
> > Please refrain from uneducated proclamations like this in the future.
>Hypotheses, not proclamations, and they are well informed.
- Chris Gwinn
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com