This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
many big european rivers have similar names
reno rhein rhône
-roDANo -eriDANo(pò) -DANubio -DoN -DNieper -DNiestr -DviNa west -DviNa north -DriNa -Drava -oder/oDra
little rivers -meDuNa .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.48.244 ( talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
As this article is neither thematically
Christocentric nor theological in tone or
Worldview, the inclusive BCE convention has been standardized throughout as has been common in the revisionist bastion of the
Ivory Tower for over 30 years.
Walking my talk in
Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (
talk •
contribs)
23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph "Old European river names are found in the Baltic and southern Scandinavia, in Central Europe, France, the British Isles, and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. Notably exempt are the Balkans and Greece, as well as the Eastern European parts associated with Slavic settlement. This area is associated with the spread of the later "Western" Indo-European dialects, the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic and Illyrian branches." doesn't read well. Surely the sentence beginning "This area is associated..." applies to the first sentence, rather than the second, as implied by the current structure? Gabhala ( talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If the hydronyms were Indo-European, then the oldest reconstructed stratum would be Proto-Indo-European. But the oldest stratum could be Pre-Indo-European (non-Indo-European), in which case the hydronyms themselves are not Indo-European.
Orczar ( talk) 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The Indo-Europeanness of alteuropäisch river-names is upheld emphatically, with a critique of Venne-mann's (1994) contrary arguments. Its Common (not just western) Indo-European origin is emphasized, yielding rational explanations for such features as the frequency of the vowel a.
Jembana ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I read Vennemann's Europa Vasconica: his critique of Krahe's theory is not based on the frequency of initial a. This is just an element, and certainly not the central one. The central argument he makes is that the language of OEH is agglutinative as the analysis of the suffixations show the language to be prevocalising. Just a look at Krahe's table is enough to make the point clear (see Vennemann's Europa Vasconica p. 147-154). Hispanist have proved that Vennemann's theory that the language was an ancient form of Basque is wrong as ancient Basque was not agglutinative and had no initial as. They acknowledge though that this language was not IE as it was certainly agglutinative. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the river Dodder in Ireland linguistically related to the other rivers named? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.225.239 ( talk) 21:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The *du(b)r element is also listed at Celtic toponymy. It obviously cannot be both Celtic and Pre-Celtic. Noting OI dobur and W dwfr, this is just the normal word for water in the Celtic languages: the most that can be being argued for is a non-IE substrate in Celtic. Added to this, the reference given is very old (1935), and it is trivially easy to find modern references deriving *dubr from PIE *dheub- (on a related issue, I find the inclusion of Eder and Oder on this list extremely unconvincing, as they seem to be reflecting something like *h3od-, or maybe *wed-). In short, this simply isn't a very good example of Old European hydronymy, and I am inclined to remove it from this article. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 Ⓤ Ⓣ 12:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I find this assertion incorrect. There are many hydronyms pertaining to OEH in those areas. Sava, Drava, Vistola, Tana, Tamar, Timis, Derventa, Drina, Abon (Rumania), Ibar, Sana, Samara, not to mention other toponyms. How should we interpret the text of the article? Is it a mistake of Krahe's who contradicts himself ? Aldrasto11 ( talk) 13:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
2012 (UTC)
While roots such as *dur, *av and even *is may be regarded as IE, it is obvious that almost all the other ones are not. The efforts made by hispanists to prove that *sar is IE look contrived. *ar is certainly not IE: just to cite two of the most productive. The fact that they are not inflectional is apparent if one looks at the suffixation without prejuduce. No known IE language may have created words in that way. Vennemann has a table at p. 155 that shows they are added irrespective of position inside the word, i.e. the same suffix may precede or follow another one. But I think everybody using the two tables by Krahe 1964 p. 62 and especially at p.63 (reproduced by Vennemann at p. 149-150 of Europa Vasconica) can see by himself that the suffixes (apart from the issue of their constitutive phonemes) may be added in a remarkably unconstrained and repetitive way and will come to the conclusion that this/these language(s) were not IE. So going back to *dur: while it looks IE/Celtic it is used as the stem of words which cannot be IE. Moreover the area of distribution of the toponyms does not tally with the areas historically inhabited by Celts. Unless one wants to think that all Europe and the ME were at one time settled by Celts. And we risk the absurd. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As I see it the issue is complex and probably unsoluble. E.g. words rooted in a stem such as Alb- (Alba, Albion/ium, Albula/ela, Albona, Albinia, Albaro/a, Albantia) may well have been formed upon a previous Al-awa, as hispanists acknowldge for their Spanish Alba. This makes attempts to interpret it on the basis of IE *alb/alp white impossible. Same stands for words rooted in Arg- (Argantia, Argentera, Argua, Arguna): are they from IE *arg for whitish, brilliant or are formed on the substrate root *ar (valley as in Arno river of Florence from ar-anos or Aran Valley meaning cave) +ga (just as Gargano Italy, Gargaso Asia Minor from *gar-ga-no/so)? One can go on with Almos (e.g. cited as the stream south of the Aventine in Rome in a IE dictionary) which may be seen as from IE *al nourish or from a substarte *al river, one of the most productive. And so on.
One root that cannot be IE is *teb/tib which has given Tiberis, Tibur a town of ancient Latium and Tibures a tribe of the ancient Asturias and the name Tiberius or Tevaries. This seems to be a root meaning hill or perhaps oakwood since has given also Tifata a mount in Campania and one of the curiae of ancient Rome. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The maps reproduced here are largely insufficient and do not match Krahe's tables. I have no time now but I could easily give instances of names in the Balkans and in Greece. As for *dur- too I would say that this list is not exhaustive. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That there are instances of the hydronymic root *dur outside the Celtic area is proved by two cases Dra'a and Daoura in Morocco (cited as an instance of *dur in an article by Moreno Mitrovic "Onomastic Structures" p. 17).
I think these two passages are very relevant to the issue:
"Desde el punto di vista romanico, todas las palabras prerromanas de los territorios donde antes de la expansion latina solo se hablaban los dialectos celticos son palabras celtas; pero no todas estas palabras son de origen indoeuropeo; algunas son anteriores a llegada de los pueblos arios; hay muchas palabras consideredas celticas atestiguadas tambien en lugares donde en epoca prerromana se hablaban otras lenguas no latinas , pero tampoco celticas, ni siquera indoeuropeas; lugares como los pireneos, por ejemplo; estas palabras o han sido lievadas alli por los celtas o proceden de lenguas anteriores no indoeuropeas."
Antonio Llorente Maldonado de Guevara "Las"Palabras pirenaicas de origen prerromano" de J. Hubschmid, y su importancia para la Linguistica peninsular" in Archivio de Filologia Aragones VIII-IX 1955 p. 129 (A. Llorente Maldonado summarises Hubschmid's article "Pyrenaenworter vorromanisches Ursprung und das vorromanische Substrat der Alpen" in Acta Salmanticensia Serie de Filosofia y Letras VII.2 1954)
Another relevant remark from Wilhelm Giese's review of Hubschmid's book Sardische Studien Bern 1953: "A Celtic word can be considered of IE source only if it is known its parent word in other IE languages. Some Preceltic words have been diffused by means of Gallic. In the Celtic languages of the islands there are Preceltic elements taken up from the Preceltic dwellers (esp. in Irish); it is though important to acknowledge that the respective Celtic peoples may have borrowed words when they were still living on the continent, and that these may be common with Gallic."
In fact it was Hubschmid and not Vennemann who first studied the substrates in toponymy, and proposed three or more substrates in Western Europe, including Berber and Hispanic (Protovasconic) in his works of 1951 and 1953. He also said the occurrence of ethnonym Iberes and potamonym Aragos in the Caucasus cannot be coincidental (ibidem p. 143).
Aldrasto11 ( talk) 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
...apelativos por Hubschmid, como en Lugo tamaro monton grande de tierra corrida a consecuencia de las lluvias, y tamara cembo, en cuya base presume para todos este autor la presencia del sufijo prerromano de gandara, comaro etc., bien que sin afirmar su identitad de origen,
El mismo Hubschmid...quiere partir como base de un tema verbal prerromano *tam- resbalar, fluir, que acaso se remonte a la raiz ide. *ta/*te- fundirse, disolverse ..., y cuya significacion se presta a dar hidronimos. W. Nicolaisen en su estudio Die alteuropǎischen Gewǎssernamen der britischen Hauptinsel (donde) enumera varias series de derivados de temas de la misma raiz, la mayoria britanicos, y en cuanto a su procedencia etnica recoge la opinion de Krahe y de Pokorny que tenian por ilirios por lo menos a los derivados con -m-; pero con dudas e inclinandose a favor de un estrato "europeo antiguo" predialectal. Lo que no deja de parecer un poco sorprendente es su ausencia en territorio de la Galia y otros celticos de Europa, cosa que parece argǔir contra este origen.
Per Tamari (bonifica) di Lecce e' da tener presente, oltre Tamarus flumen (Tammaro), anche il siculo Damyrias fl. e, piu' lontano, i preceltici Tamaris, Tamesis (Tamigi, Thames), che ci riportano forse ad un radicale *tam- "argilla" (clay) e all ' etrusco thamce "aedificavit". From: "Genti e favelle dell' antica Apulia" in Arch. Stor. Pugliese II 1 1949 p. 16-17. Anche Studi Etruschi X p. 189 e n. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 00:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the groundbreaking work by Moreno Mitrovic' "Onomastic structures", which puts for the first time in the right epistemological and methodological perspective the study of ancient European, til then prone to the laxitude which had brought about the Indo European reductionism of the Celticists in recent years, here is now a new contribution by British researchers:
LONDON: For the first time ever, European and Asian languages spoken by billions of people today have been traced back to a single mother tongue as old as the Ice Age. Researchers from Britain's University of Reading have found that our Ice Age ancestors used some words in common with us, such as "you", "mother" and "fire". These words now point to the existence of a linguistic super-family that unites seven major language families of Eurasia: Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian, Dravidian, Chuckchee-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut The research traced a set of common words back in time further than ever before to identify the origins of Eurasian languages to a time nearly 15,000 years ago, and corresponding to the end of the last Ice Age.
It is amply provable that the language of hydronymy was not Proto Indo European, but an ancestor language of it. See the potamonyms beginning with letters dr and nahr which are common to Berber Arabic and South Indian languages, sav sov with Uralic and Sami etc.
In the end the school of the Mediterranean sostrate was proved right. Names such as those rooted in *mal- cannot be simply sent to IE *mel or in *kar/gar sent to IE *ger, *tam with *ta with some jump of imagination and sleight of hands by indoeuropeanists. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In the article mentioned here above Moralejo Laso considers the name of the leonese river Orbigo (anc. Urbicus) as derivated from Basque +ur water plus -bi two, two rivers. The Bosnian hydronyms Urbanja etc. seem to point to another explanation even though one does accept the folk etymology from the Serbo-croat name of the willow tree. Noteworthy is the extension of the base as +urb-. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
To these one may add Urviş in Romania, wow!!! Orba in Italy, Orge in France all from Urba. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the example of Aire (river in England) from the list of examples of Isara, because the etymology is not consistent with the other examples, which are all connected to the Celtic root of the word iron (isarnon). Also not to be removed as WP:OR, this list needs a source.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, the article seems more like a summary of Krahe's scholarship on Old-European river names than an encyclopedia article on the names themselves. He's clearly an important scholar in the field—indeed, the founder of the field. But information about his work must be better subordinated to the larger discussion so that other scholars' contributions don't seem like an appendix or afterthought, as they presently do.
Krahe needs to be mentioned in the introduction certainly, but try to focus on the larger subject. Then put the exposition of Krahe's arguments under a subhead titled something like Foundation of the Study. A second section (analogously titled—Recent Developments?), discussing emendations to Krahe, could follow that. Just make sure that you focus always on the topic, not on a particular scholar, however salient. KC 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC) KC 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
The references to sources are too prominent in the article and get in the way of the valuable information communicated here. All of that technical information can be relegated to a Notes section, and the point of the article will come through much more clearly.
I should add that I have absolutely no expertise in this field. I can offer advice only about writing. I hope someone—perhaps the original author?—will take on my suggestion and turn this important entry into the really fine entry it could be.
KC 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) KC 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
I would assume the Dutch IJssel, which used to be known by the Romans as Isala, fits in the *Sal-, *Salm- group, no? Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 11:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"Creator of the modern Basque language"? What on earth is this supposed to mean? C'mon, people... 96.42.57.164 ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
many big european rivers have similar names
reno rhein rhône
-roDANo -eriDANo(pò) -DANubio -DoN -DNieper -DNiestr -DviNa west -DviNa north -DriNa -Drava -oder/oDra
little rivers -meDuNa .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.48.244 ( talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
As this article is neither thematically
Christocentric nor theological in tone or
Worldview, the inclusive BCE convention has been standardized throughout as has been common in the revisionist bastion of the
Ivory Tower for over 30 years.
Walking my talk in
Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (
talk •
contribs)
23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph "Old European river names are found in the Baltic and southern Scandinavia, in Central Europe, France, the British Isles, and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. Notably exempt are the Balkans and Greece, as well as the Eastern European parts associated with Slavic settlement. This area is associated with the spread of the later "Western" Indo-European dialects, the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic and Illyrian branches." doesn't read well. Surely the sentence beginning "This area is associated..." applies to the first sentence, rather than the second, as implied by the current structure? Gabhala ( talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If the hydronyms were Indo-European, then the oldest reconstructed stratum would be Proto-Indo-European. But the oldest stratum could be Pre-Indo-European (non-Indo-European), in which case the hydronyms themselves are not Indo-European.
Orczar ( talk) 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The Indo-Europeanness of alteuropäisch river-names is upheld emphatically, with a critique of Venne-mann's (1994) contrary arguments. Its Common (not just western) Indo-European origin is emphasized, yielding rational explanations for such features as the frequency of the vowel a.
Jembana ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I read Vennemann's Europa Vasconica: his critique of Krahe's theory is not based on the frequency of initial a. This is just an element, and certainly not the central one. The central argument he makes is that the language of OEH is agglutinative as the analysis of the suffixations show the language to be prevocalising. Just a look at Krahe's table is enough to make the point clear (see Vennemann's Europa Vasconica p. 147-154). Hispanist have proved that Vennemann's theory that the language was an ancient form of Basque is wrong as ancient Basque was not agglutinative and had no initial as. They acknowledge though that this language was not IE as it was certainly agglutinative. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the river Dodder in Ireland linguistically related to the other rivers named? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.225.239 ( talk) 21:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The *du(b)r element is also listed at Celtic toponymy. It obviously cannot be both Celtic and Pre-Celtic. Noting OI dobur and W dwfr, this is just the normal word for water in the Celtic languages: the most that can be being argued for is a non-IE substrate in Celtic. Added to this, the reference given is very old (1935), and it is trivially easy to find modern references deriving *dubr from PIE *dheub- (on a related issue, I find the inclusion of Eder and Oder on this list extremely unconvincing, as they seem to be reflecting something like *h3od-, or maybe *wed-). In short, this simply isn't a very good example of Old European hydronymy, and I am inclined to remove it from this article. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 Ⓤ Ⓣ 12:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I find this assertion incorrect. There are many hydronyms pertaining to OEH in those areas. Sava, Drava, Vistola, Tana, Tamar, Timis, Derventa, Drina, Abon (Rumania), Ibar, Sana, Samara, not to mention other toponyms. How should we interpret the text of the article? Is it a mistake of Krahe's who contradicts himself ? Aldrasto11 ( talk) 13:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
2012 (UTC)
While roots such as *dur, *av and even *is may be regarded as IE, it is obvious that almost all the other ones are not. The efforts made by hispanists to prove that *sar is IE look contrived. *ar is certainly not IE: just to cite two of the most productive. The fact that they are not inflectional is apparent if one looks at the suffixation without prejuduce. No known IE language may have created words in that way. Vennemann has a table at p. 155 that shows they are added irrespective of position inside the word, i.e. the same suffix may precede or follow another one. But I think everybody using the two tables by Krahe 1964 p. 62 and especially at p.63 (reproduced by Vennemann at p. 149-150 of Europa Vasconica) can see by himself that the suffixes (apart from the issue of their constitutive phonemes) may be added in a remarkably unconstrained and repetitive way and will come to the conclusion that this/these language(s) were not IE. So going back to *dur: while it looks IE/Celtic it is used as the stem of words which cannot be IE. Moreover the area of distribution of the toponyms does not tally with the areas historically inhabited by Celts. Unless one wants to think that all Europe and the ME were at one time settled by Celts. And we risk the absurd. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As I see it the issue is complex and probably unsoluble. E.g. words rooted in a stem such as Alb- (Alba, Albion/ium, Albula/ela, Albona, Albinia, Albaro/a, Albantia) may well have been formed upon a previous Al-awa, as hispanists acknowldge for their Spanish Alba. This makes attempts to interpret it on the basis of IE *alb/alp white impossible. Same stands for words rooted in Arg- (Argantia, Argentera, Argua, Arguna): are they from IE *arg for whitish, brilliant or are formed on the substrate root *ar (valley as in Arno river of Florence from ar-anos or Aran Valley meaning cave) +ga (just as Gargano Italy, Gargaso Asia Minor from *gar-ga-no/so)? One can go on with Almos (e.g. cited as the stream south of the Aventine in Rome in a IE dictionary) which may be seen as from IE *al nourish or from a substarte *al river, one of the most productive. And so on.
One root that cannot be IE is *teb/tib which has given Tiberis, Tibur a town of ancient Latium and Tibures a tribe of the ancient Asturias and the name Tiberius or Tevaries. This seems to be a root meaning hill or perhaps oakwood since has given also Tifata a mount in Campania and one of the curiae of ancient Rome. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 05:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The maps reproduced here are largely insufficient and do not match Krahe's tables. I have no time now but I could easily give instances of names in the Balkans and in Greece. As for *dur- too I would say that this list is not exhaustive. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That there are instances of the hydronymic root *dur outside the Celtic area is proved by two cases Dra'a and Daoura in Morocco (cited as an instance of *dur in an article by Moreno Mitrovic "Onomastic Structures" p. 17).
I think these two passages are very relevant to the issue:
"Desde el punto di vista romanico, todas las palabras prerromanas de los territorios donde antes de la expansion latina solo se hablaban los dialectos celticos son palabras celtas; pero no todas estas palabras son de origen indoeuropeo; algunas son anteriores a llegada de los pueblos arios; hay muchas palabras consideredas celticas atestiguadas tambien en lugares donde en epoca prerromana se hablaban otras lenguas no latinas , pero tampoco celticas, ni siquera indoeuropeas; lugares como los pireneos, por ejemplo; estas palabras o han sido lievadas alli por los celtas o proceden de lenguas anteriores no indoeuropeas."
Antonio Llorente Maldonado de Guevara "Las"Palabras pirenaicas de origen prerromano" de J. Hubschmid, y su importancia para la Linguistica peninsular" in Archivio de Filologia Aragones VIII-IX 1955 p. 129 (A. Llorente Maldonado summarises Hubschmid's article "Pyrenaenworter vorromanisches Ursprung und das vorromanische Substrat der Alpen" in Acta Salmanticensia Serie de Filosofia y Letras VII.2 1954)
Another relevant remark from Wilhelm Giese's review of Hubschmid's book Sardische Studien Bern 1953: "A Celtic word can be considered of IE source only if it is known its parent word in other IE languages. Some Preceltic words have been diffused by means of Gallic. In the Celtic languages of the islands there are Preceltic elements taken up from the Preceltic dwellers (esp. in Irish); it is though important to acknowledge that the respective Celtic peoples may have borrowed words when they were still living on the continent, and that these may be common with Gallic."
In fact it was Hubschmid and not Vennemann who first studied the substrates in toponymy, and proposed three or more substrates in Western Europe, including Berber and Hispanic (Protovasconic) in his works of 1951 and 1953. He also said the occurrence of ethnonym Iberes and potamonym Aragos in the Caucasus cannot be coincidental (ibidem p. 143).
Aldrasto11 ( talk) 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
...apelativos por Hubschmid, como en Lugo tamaro monton grande de tierra corrida a consecuencia de las lluvias, y tamara cembo, en cuya base presume para todos este autor la presencia del sufijo prerromano de gandara, comaro etc., bien que sin afirmar su identitad de origen,
El mismo Hubschmid...quiere partir como base de un tema verbal prerromano *tam- resbalar, fluir, que acaso se remonte a la raiz ide. *ta/*te- fundirse, disolverse ..., y cuya significacion se presta a dar hidronimos. W. Nicolaisen en su estudio Die alteuropǎischen Gewǎssernamen der britischen Hauptinsel (donde) enumera varias series de derivados de temas de la misma raiz, la mayoria britanicos, y en cuanto a su procedencia etnica recoge la opinion de Krahe y de Pokorny que tenian por ilirios por lo menos a los derivados con -m-; pero con dudas e inclinandose a favor de un estrato "europeo antiguo" predialectal. Lo que no deja de parecer un poco sorprendente es su ausencia en territorio de la Galia y otros celticos de Europa, cosa que parece argǔir contra este origen.
Per Tamari (bonifica) di Lecce e' da tener presente, oltre Tamarus flumen (Tammaro), anche il siculo Damyrias fl. e, piu' lontano, i preceltici Tamaris, Tamesis (Tamigi, Thames), che ci riportano forse ad un radicale *tam- "argilla" (clay) e all ' etrusco thamce "aedificavit". From: "Genti e favelle dell' antica Apulia" in Arch. Stor. Pugliese II 1 1949 p. 16-17. Anche Studi Etruschi X p. 189 e n. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 00:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the groundbreaking work by Moreno Mitrovic' "Onomastic structures", which puts for the first time in the right epistemological and methodological perspective the study of ancient European, til then prone to the laxitude which had brought about the Indo European reductionism of the Celticists in recent years, here is now a new contribution by British researchers:
LONDON: For the first time ever, European and Asian languages spoken by billions of people today have been traced back to a single mother tongue as old as the Ice Age. Researchers from Britain's University of Reading have found that our Ice Age ancestors used some words in common with us, such as "you", "mother" and "fire". These words now point to the existence of a linguistic super-family that unites seven major language families of Eurasia: Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian, Dravidian, Chuckchee-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut The research traced a set of common words back in time further than ever before to identify the origins of Eurasian languages to a time nearly 15,000 years ago, and corresponding to the end of the last Ice Age.
It is amply provable that the language of hydronymy was not Proto Indo European, but an ancestor language of it. See the potamonyms beginning with letters dr and nahr which are common to Berber Arabic and South Indian languages, sav sov with Uralic and Sami etc.
In the end the school of the Mediterranean sostrate was proved right. Names such as those rooted in *mal- cannot be simply sent to IE *mel or in *kar/gar sent to IE *ger, *tam with *ta with some jump of imagination and sleight of hands by indoeuropeanists. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In the article mentioned here above Moralejo Laso considers the name of the leonese river Orbigo (anc. Urbicus) as derivated from Basque +ur water plus -bi two, two rivers. The Bosnian hydronyms Urbanja etc. seem to point to another explanation even though one does accept the folk etymology from the Serbo-croat name of the willow tree. Noteworthy is the extension of the base as +urb-. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
To these one may add Urviş in Romania, wow!!! Orba in Italy, Orge in France all from Urba. Aldrasto11 ( talk) 04:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the example of Aire (river in England) from the list of examples of Isara, because the etymology is not consistent with the other examples, which are all connected to the Celtic root of the word iron (isarnon). Also not to be removed as WP:OR, this list needs a source.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, the article seems more like a summary of Krahe's scholarship on Old-European river names than an encyclopedia article on the names themselves. He's clearly an important scholar in the field—indeed, the founder of the field. But information about his work must be better subordinated to the larger discussion so that other scholars' contributions don't seem like an appendix or afterthought, as they presently do.
Krahe needs to be mentioned in the introduction certainly, but try to focus on the larger subject. Then put the exposition of Krahe's arguments under a subhead titled something like Foundation of the Study. A second section (analogously titled—Recent Developments?), discussing emendations to Krahe, could follow that. Just make sure that you focus always on the topic, not on a particular scholar, however salient. KC 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC) KC 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
The references to sources are too prominent in the article and get in the way of the valuable information communicated here. All of that technical information can be relegated to a Notes section, and the point of the article will come through much more clearly.
I should add that I have absolutely no expertise in this field. I can offer advice only about writing. I hope someone—perhaps the original author?—will take on my suggestion and turn this important entry into the really fine entry it could be.
KC 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) KC 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
I would assume the Dutch IJssel, which used to be known by the Romans as Isala, fits in the *Sal-, *Salm- group, no? Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 11:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"Creator of the modern Basque language"? What on earth is this supposed to mean? C'mon, people... 96.42.57.164 ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)