Don't take this personal remark for you, but I think we are wasting time with this Gvozdanovic hypothesis - I already explained the phonetic peculiarities of the today 'vannetais' ('gwenedeg') dialect are far less striking than the Oil french phonetics so if the palatalizing facts putten as proves had some worth, the linguistical argument ought to be applied to all Gaul or almost, and we need no more distorsion of the poor 'veneti' name origin to explain this surprising theory - all Gauls were Veneti brethren then and all of them amber traders (at least all the tribes near the sea)...???
to go further on, I see yet NO PROOF of Veneti AS AN EXONYM - and 'bennozh' is a modern word in breton ('bennoh' in vannetais) and came surely from a loan on latin : welsh 'bendith' so close to 'benedict-us' for "blessed" - contrary to what is said in the little text, 'venet' does not mean 'blessed' in latine BUT the explanation OF THE CONFUSION could be that 'blessed' is rendered also by 'gwenn' in breton (by semantic picture: "white" >> "pure" >> "blessed") BUT 'gwenn' come from 'vindo' not from 'venet-'
I think someones write a lot of things based upon a too superficial study of facts (look at the theory linking Phoenicians and Veneti, already dismissed by a lot of people here, Taranis and me among them -
I repeat : making hypothesis is good and necessary very often, but proofs are required before becoming too affirmative -
&: I 'm amazed that someone could affirm that Veneti were Y-R1b-L513: have we found a lot of ancient Veneti DNA??? If true I ignored it!
good evening