Re: [tied] Etruscan numerals

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "petusek" <petusek@...> wrote:

> Marco:
> >I don't agree. A shift "5" to "4" is improbable and chance
>
> Well, I haven't found any analogy in any language yet, but, of

course, it

> doesn't mean I never will and that this semantic shift isn't

possible (a

> matter of imagination), it's improbable, yes I agree.
>
> >resemblance is often inconsistent.
>
> As for chance resemblances and their frequent inconsistences, I

don't

> understand the reply. Where and when did Glen, me or anyone else

write about

> chance resemblances?

Glen never wrote about chance resemblance, as far I konw, but your
hypothesis of Etr. /huth/ as derived from NEC for five is clearly due
to some chance resemblance.

> As far as the following is concerned, I ask "why"?
>
> >It's far better to consider /huth/ as belonging to:
>
> (shortened:)
> >NEC Protoform: *he>mq.y Meaning: four...
>
> If you mention chance resemblance, you should know what it means.

Comparing

> the above to /huth/, it might be considered nothing but playing

chance

> resemblance game, and not even that. You should ask yourself: "Can

I find

> other possible NEC loans? Did they undergo similar phonetic changes

on their

> way to Etruscan? What other (lexical? cultural? historical?

geographical ?

> etc.) parallels can I find that support this claim of mine?" And I

can add

> one more question: FOR WHAT REASON is it "far better" to

consider /huth/

> belonging to NEC *he>mq.y than "IT" *kWetWan? Giving a list of

language

> proto-forms is not a proof of anything, you know. If you do not

want us to

> give you "chance resemblance" **cognates**, then reveal to us the

great

> secret of (regular, to an extent) phonetic correspondences (or, in

case of

> borrowing, the adoption rules), please. Thank you.
>
> Petusek
>
> P.S.: Ok. Let's play the game for a while (Glen, this is just a

game, don't

> worry :)):
>
> Adoption rules (???):
>
> NEC /h/ = Etr. /h/
> NEC /?/ = Etr. /h/
> NEC /q/ = Etr. /t/ (or /-q/ as a numeral class marker replaced by

Etr. own

> something-else-marker?)
> ...
>
> Rules are nice but do they work with other loans?

I never told you this numeral is a LOAN. I think Etruscan is
GENETICALLY related with NEC. I found many regular phonetic
correspondences. NEC /q/ does NOT correspond to Etr. /t/: the final
consonant in huth is apparently an old fossilized marker.
I think Glen was unable to provide convincing explanation of IE -
Tyrrhenian sound correspondences. Particularly he is unable to
provide convincing examples of Tyrrhenian /h/ corresponding to
IE /kW/.

Marco