Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:04:18 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>Miguel:
>> Let's see: intervocalic: marunuchva, after resonant:
>> pulumchva. No, that's not the pattern.
>
>Good one. I was thinking /heramva/ but then that I guess is short
>for /heramas'va/. Alright. Let's keep it to this then:
>
>Tyrrhenian *x > EtruscoLemnian *kH, or *w intervocalically or when
>following sibilant.

So what about marunuchva? And what about culs'cva?

>> What Adiego says, and I agree, is that the Etruscan animate
>> plural marker -ra is *also* in origin a collective marker,
>> not a "true" plural.
>
>Well, even so, I can't see a relationship to anything else other than
>IE *-es.

I don't see how -ra can be connected with PIE *-es (<
*-atu). I would rather connect the Etruscan plural with
plurals/collectives such as Svan -ä(:)r/-ä(:)l, -ra; Mari
-la, -v-la-(k); Turkic -la-r.

>I don't think there would be any firm reasons to claim
>that it was a collective marker like /-cHva/. At least these
>family names seem to show that indeed the plural was a collective
>regardless of gender. I'll have to remember that one. However, the
>same proof doesn't exist for /-r(a)/, does it?

The plural patronymics in -(i)s'-va- are always combined
with plural family names in -thu-ra (Aules' Larthial
Precuthuras'i Larthialis'vle Cestnal clenaras'i : For Aule
(and) Larth Precu, sons of Larth (and) of Cestna). Whatever
goes for praenomen-al-(i)s'-va- also would seem to apply to
gentilicium-thu-ra.

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