Talk:Old European hydronymy

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: no. see Wikipedia:Eras. dab (𒁳) 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC to BCE:  get with the [[Zeitgeist]]! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paragaph Structure 

message: 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)
replies: text: Krahe and Kitson say the Old European Hydrynomy is Indo-European - see their references cited in the text.Jembana (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ...from Kitson's abstract:
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)
thread_title:  European hydronymy 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't even see a passing resemblance with the names listed in the article. I mean, they have a form like d-(u/o)-r-(a) – how do you fit Dodder in there? Well, it could be a reduplicated form like *do-dor- or *du-dur-, but that's only a jocular and completely ad hoc guess I just came up with. More seriously, the Irish name seems to be An Dothra, which suggests an ancient Celtic form *Dutro-/*Dutrā- or whatever, still leaving the second alveolar consonant to explain. Sorry, even within a shoddy methodical framework like here, this connection doesn't fit at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodder 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree, remove it.Jembana (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You could as well remove them all. I've never encountered any examples that were not horrible, and the list is very representative of the state of the "art". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove this example, Parsons 2010 pages 179-180 in Celtic from the West states that it is unequivocally Celtic with numerous example and a map to prove the point plus citations from River 1980 and Sims-Williams 2006. The assertion that it is pre-Celtic is a nonsense that can't be maintained - there are numerous references backing up what user Oxyphenbutazone has written above.Jembana (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is more complex than it looks at first. The root *dur may well look IE (and yes alsoCeltic) but  it is also certainly non IE, i.e. substrate. Considering it Celtic leads to impossible consequences.Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Urbicus (Orbigo), Urbanja, Urbas, Urbashka 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are wrong: these instances are not at all connected to the Celtic root isarnon=iron, but in the view of Krahe and other indoeuropeanists to PIE *eis to move rapidly. See Pokorny. I must add that this view too is wrong as these rivers do not move more rapidly than other. This has been observed by Italian linguists and lastly by Vennemann.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isara > [[Aire]] (England) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article focus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References with text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing in map? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Mitxelena (in English editions he appears as Luis Michelena) was only the creator of the modern Basque language.