Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:04:32 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>However, to account for /ipa/, one needs to either give up on its
>etymology or to conclude that since so many other demonstratives are
>clearly related to IE, that it too is related to its respective IE
>counterpart *kWo-. In MIE, the interrogative is *kWa but OIE merged
>final *-e and *-a to *-a as I said before, remember?

What about *-kWe "and"?

>With ITyr *kWe, we expect Tyrrhenian **i-ke under the normal rules but
>this is homophonous with the demonstrative! We already can figure
>out that Etruscan ica 'this' < Tyrrhenian *ike, with a later optional
>prothetic deictic *i- for all demonstratives (cf. IE *i-). To add to
>the complication, there is also the postclitic *kWe 'and' which must
>surely become Tyrrhenian *-ke because we can clearly observe Etruscan
>/-ca/

-c(h), in fact.

> showing yet another example of expected Tyrrhenian *k from
>plain ITyr *kW.

On a slightly different topic: besides /f/ and /h/, Etruscan
had another fricative/affricate <z>. Where do you think
that comes from? (The matter may be relevant to the topic
of the labiovelars, given that it's always tempting to link
ziv(a)- "live, alive?" to PIE *gWih3w-).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...