Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:27:18 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>
>Miguel:
>> What about *-kWe "and"?
>
>I already explained. It's not a suffix. It's a postclitic. It was
>later independently suffixed in IE languages and Etruscan. Therefore,
>*kW is not medial. It's in initial position and becomes *k in Tyrrhenian
>as expected. Etruscan has /ca/ everything is normal.

I was actually referring to PIE *-kWe. You said something
about a merger of *-e and *-a.

>> -c(h), in fact.
>
>From what I understand, the older texts have /-ca/.

I've never seen that. Reference?

>The relationship between /ziva/ and 'alive' is impossible considering
>that the word is known to mean _dead_ in Etruscan, the very antonym
>of the stem you're trying to connect it to!

The word is found a couple of times next to the age of the
deaceased (he died at X years / he lived X years). TLE 135
allows only one interpretation:

camnas larth larthal s'atnalc clan an s'uthi lautni zivas
cerichu / tes'amsa s'uthith atrs'rc escuna calti s'uthiti
munth zivas murs'l XX

Larth Camna, son of Larth and Satnei. He had the family
grave built _while alive_ etc.

Note the locatives s'uthith and s'uthiti "in the grave".

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