Second of all, you're not using the full word. 'Las' is only a morphological root of a word, not a complete word. In fact, it's not even the complete root, at that. It's lass-. The only reason I can see for not using the complete word, or even the complete root, is that it Atlas as it is attested doesn't have two "s"es at the end. Which suggests your derivation, such as it is, comes only from the form and not the actual derivation or historical evidence for the word. That and the fact that I'm not aware of any Latin borrowing, learned or otherwise, that uses only the root of a word and not the entire form -- I would point specifically to Kibler's Introdction to Old French, which discusses both the morphological and syntactical change in Latin words through the course of borrowing (learned and otherwise), and how important those endings were to language development: it has hundreds of counterexamples to your use here.
But even you admit this isn't very firm ground, and there's no reason to think it stands up to sense. Niether does the idea that the Greeks -- not a specifc Greek dialect, mind, just an undefined 'Greek', which is like saying 'Chinese' rather than Mandarin, Hokkien, or Cantonese -- would then borrow a (proto?) Latin/Euskara word, seemingly only to make the derivation of the word murkier, and that only to make your theory the stronger.
And that was two lines from one post.
I don't think either one of us particularly wants to go on in this nit-picking strain, and by and large I'm happy to pass most of your posts by as I have done recently, but I think my comments that your codlingua is not a valid use of linguistics stands, and you can't get too huffy seeing that kind of response in print.
Out of 3 posts, that's the best you could do...? One I already said was unworkable, you disappoint me and maybe even underestimate me.