Re: [tied] Re: PNC Playland

>>Isn't Proto-Nakh supposed to have existed in historical times?
>
>Your second one is reasonable because the Nakh languages are so
>similar it is unlikely that they do not share a common ancestor and
>that this was not fairly recently (say 1000 years ago).

Precisely, so let it be known to the List members that Nakh cannot be
rationally connected to Etruscan nor to Tyrrhenian which existed long before
Nakh. You say that Chechen /qo?/ is "three". Quite right, you are. Mea
culpa. That would explain why Nakh is not listed under for "two" (even
though it might be includable). Regardless, a Nakh meaning of "three" means
nothing because we are not talking about a stage of NEC with which the
Etruscans or Tyrrhenians could possibly in one's wildest dreams have
interacted. Please excuse my atheism.

>The idea that Kartvelian forms part of some macro group
>requires a leap of faith. Or some more evidence. Aren't some
>Nostraticists even starting to regard its membership as problematic?

I'm afraid I haven't heard of this but it's always possible that some
Nostraticists find Kartvelian problematic I suppose. Overall, it's no more
problematic than including any of the other commonly purported Nostratic
languages like Sumerian or AfroAsiatic. I would question what "type" of
people are obsessed with taking Kartvelian out of the Nostratic picture
though. Crop circle devotees? UFO Researchers? Whom are you refering to
exactly?

>I didn't say they *went* there, I said they *came from* there.

It doesn't matter either way. It's entirely implausible for so many reasons,
including, again, the geography, as well as timespan, and the fact that
there are so many other peoples in this area to move around. Plus, the fact
that there is absolutely no Tyrrhenian residue left in the Middle East to go
on if it were true at all.

>Such a distance itself is not a problem. Up until 1864 the Ubykhs >were in
>the Caucasus. The following year they were in Western Turkey.

Yes, yes. How nice. I fail to see how 1864 compares to the mesolithic or
even the prehistoric neolithic.

>There is evidence of Etruscoid adstrate/substrate influence on Lydian >(or
>rather, its ancestor). So they must have been in the vicinity for >a while.

Vicinity of Hattic, yes, but not even close to any NEC people, ever.

>There is evidence of IE Anatolian areal influence on Etruscan, so >they
>must have been there for a while.

No, not for "a while", they were from there and had been there for a very
long time. Enough time to leave some Tyrrhenian names hanging around (like
Yttenia).

>Raetic is problematic too. I think a genetic relationship between >Etruscan
>and Raetic is far from being proved. It is not even clear >that the
>inscriptions ascribed to Raetic are all in the same >language.

Well whatever the case may be the following inscriptions classified as
"Rhaetic" appear to be quite Tyrrhenian and not Celtic:

1. paniun lazanuale zupicu perunies schaispala
2. phani ziuphicu remies hiraphasu vachic velisanes

>I for one am sure there are a couple of Celtic ones in there.

Demonstrate or hold your peace.

>The idea that Etruscan influences in Raetic are due to nothing more >than a
>late northern military excursion has not been disproved.

Probably because no one would go to so much trouble in minutia.

>Sorry to disappoint that nice Mr Starostin as well with his pretty
>reconstruction. There is no way the Nakh form fits in with the
>Daghestanian ones.

And no way otherwise for the Nakh forms to be NEC. To bad for you.

>I don't think the sound shift -l < *-i is unreasonable, after all,
>there is evidence for it in archaic Etruscan.

Elaborate. Warning: the "l-genitive" arguement is insufficient.

>There is evidence for prenasalisation in a number of Etruscan words.

There is nothing of the kind.

>Therefore max < *mpax is quite plausible. We also have to account for
>the -u- in /muvalx/ '50'.

It's *maxala-kowa versus *meke "five". The difference arises due to some
vowel harmony which exists in Tyrrhenian.

>Anyway, /mex(-lum)/ is just another way of writing /methlum/
>which doesn't fit your etymology quite as well.

It's methlum < mechlum, silly!

>Nice story, but my story for -al- and -x also fits. Often there seems
>to be no problem putting a case ending immediately after -alx as in
>/cealxl/ so the -ve- or -va- isn't usually there.

Or the ending had eroded to -u-.

>I have numerous books on Etruscan written in English, Italian and
>German and I have read them. Dropping vowels at the ends of words
>doesn't happen as much as it does internally and it is a late
>phenomenon anyway. Funnily enough, Nakh has a strong stress accent on
>the first syllable, just like Etruscan.

Just like Uralic languages as well.

>I have to agree with you there. And I have to admit that my knowledge
>of Daghestanian is still pretty patchy at present. But if things >happen in
>Nakh and Etruscan, but not in Daghestanian, then there is >something worth
>further investigation here.

When the foundation of your suspicion cannot be sufficiently explained and
when such an explanation of one's suspicions does not in itself conform to
known fact, there is nothing worth investigating. Nakh cannot connect to
Etruscan. Neither can NEC or any of its stages. End of story.

- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com