Re: [tied] Re: PNC Playland

In a message dated 04/03/01 01:54:05 GMT Standard Time,
glengordon01@... writes:

> >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.

By 'connected to' you mean 'genetically related', right? I am talking
about a substrate, not a genetic relationship. I am not talking about
the whole of NEC being related to the whole of Etruscan. In any case
the lowest numbers in Nakh are not NEC. Unless you make 2=3, of
course. So they must have come from something else. The lowest numbers
in Etruscan are not IE (or insert favourite language family). So they
must have come from something else.

> 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 was merely going on Greenberg in "IE and its nearest relatives":
"I consider it [Kartvelian] not to be a member of Eurasiatic proper,
in which I am in agreement with Bomhard and Kerns (1994)". (A
reference to their "The Nostratic Macro-family", Berlin 1994).

> >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.

How do you think they went to Western Turkey? Car? Aeroplane? Anyway,
it was probably even easier in ancient times because of there being
less people in the way.

> >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.

And Hurrian. And, like I keep saying, not the *whole* of NEC. Just
where a substrate of Nakh also once was.

> >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

Yes, I agree with you on these ones. Would you like to hazard an
interpretation?

> >I for one am sure there are a couple of Celtic ones in there.
>
> Demonstrate or hold your peace.

How about comparing 'erikian vepelie' with the Venetic inscription
'porai vebelei'. In Manuel de la Langue Venete, Lejeune says the
Venetic /porai/ is from *per. Taking the P- off it and adding an
ending like -ikian sounds a bit more like Celtic than Tyrrhenian.

> >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.

Not at all. I am not seeking to demonstrate a genetic relationship
between Nakh and Etruscan. The genetic relationship between most of
the words and grammar in Nakh and the rest of NEC is beyond doubt. But
not its number '3' (and some other stuff). That resembles Etruscan and
Hurrian.

> >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.

How about Lemnian /avis/?

> >There is evidence for prenasalisation in a number of Etruscan words.
>
> There is nothing of the kind.

You don't agree with Perrotin's examples, then?

> Nakh cannot connect to
> Etruscan. Neither can NEC or any of its stages. End of story.

You've still got this genetic fixation.


Ed.