[tied] Re: Pre-Germanic speculation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 30-10-03 15:00, Marco Moretti wrote:
>
> > So, as for you, Etruscan doesn't exist.
> > In Thracian bolinthos, "aurochs", there is -inthos, but it hardly

can

> > be some kind of participial suffix.
>
> Etruscan surely exists, but I fail to see why we have to explain

Greek

> toponyms in terms of Etruscan if there are other possibilities.

Whatever

> we find in <bolinthos>, it may be same suffix that we find in

numerous

> names of young living beings in Slavic: *-e~/*-e~t- < *-n.t . Any
> analysis that works for Slavic will surely work for Thracian as

well.

>
> > Not _ALL_ your arguments, in general, but only your arguments

about

> > this toponym Samsø. If you have no clear etymology for it,

whatever

> > you say of a Germanic *sam- in it makes no sense. I only affirmed

the

> > non-IE, pre-Germanic nature of the item, without linking it with
> > something else. Perhaps the protoform of Samsø was more

convoluted,

> > but it remains clearly non-IE.
>
> I have no particular interest in Samsø; the name is etymologically
> obscure to me for reasons that have nothing to do with its IE or

non-IE

> character (I only know its modern form, which is too short and too
> uncharacteristic to be of much use). It doesn't look non-Germanic

at

> all, but I have already explaind my reasons for not speculating

about

> it. I fail to see why it should be CLEARLY non-IE.
>

No one said it was _clearly_ non-IE. All names of Danish are short
and uncharacteristic, but if they are Germanic, they should be no
shorter or uncharacteristicker than the average Danish word, but they
they don't match up, I'm afraid.

Torsten