Me:
>>I have a sneaky feeling that there were many kinds of "Trojans".
>>Some were Indo-European, some were Tyrrhenian, some were Semitic,
Piotr:
>I don't know about Semitic and Tyrrhenian, but of the IE ones at
>least some "Trojans" were Luwian, especially at an early date.
Yes, Anatolian-speaking peoples are part of this for sure.
Perhaps not so much Semitic, although there must have been SOME
Semitic-speaking people in Troy.
Still, I can't get the equation of Etruscan /ras'na/ and "Troy"
out of my head and I like the "shifted" accent I devised for an
early Proto-Tyrrhenian. After thinking about it some more, I
think I've deduced that the Etrusco-Rhaetic ended up in Italy by
1000 BCE, by which time, the language had already simplified most
initial consonant clusters. Thus, *d@... (*d = [t]) would have
become *resena around 1100 BCE. Now, I think this means that the
*d@... people, originally from the city of *d@... "Troy",
would end up on the tips of Egyptian tongues as the *t@...
The ethnonym would enter Greek at around the same time as
*tursenoi.
Does anyone see a problem with that?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail