Miguel:
> On the other hand, if you look only at Etruscan, say at
> -c(h) "and" and -ce (verbal preterite ending), then there is
> no logic necessity to derive -c(h) from *-ce, unless you can
> derive -ce from yet something else.
Not necessarily. The two suffixes may have had different histories.
For instance, I insist that 'and' is from a _postparticle_ *ke
while the verbal ending -ce was actually indeed from a suffix
*-k:e. Maybe something in that makes a difference right there.
Since *a appears to disappear elsewhere when we move from Tyrrhenian
to Etruscan, perhaps for some yet unknown reason, what should be
*ke ended up a bound suffix *-ka in EtruscoLemnian. It is interesting
to note that, at least in Tyrrhenian as it is currently formulated,
*a is the neutral vowel, the one that avoids accent. Perhaps it was
the designated "non-vowel" for enclitics and then that would explain
why we have what appears to be a reflex of *-ka rather than *-ke.
... Hmm, in fact, that might then explain *ka and *ta ("this" and
"that") which when bound to the noun, becomes /-cn/ or /-tn/ in the
accusative from earlier a suffixed *kan and *tan. Why, yes! That's
brilliant.
NEW THEORY!!! Listen to this!
So in other words, particles are given *a-vocalism in Tyrrhenian
despite their original vocalisms, while suffixes remain untouched.
Therefore, we have postparticle _*ka_ being 'and' but still relating
to IE *kWe, while *-ke is the verbal suffix denoting completion. Then
we also have *ka and *ta which are preposed demonstratives (IE *ko-
and *to-) that sometimes end up suffixed to nouns in Etruscan, showing
the loss of the unstressed *a in accusative *kan and *tan.
Excellent!
= gLeN