>I do think there was a healthy dose of NC influence though.
> It's interesting and we definitely have to step back
> from IE to appreciate it. My intuition is that
> Etruscan is more likely to be related to IE than to a
> N Caucasian language but it's just that and you've got
> a lot more work to do.
> --- etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:Yes, IIRC.
> > > *deH2 to divide, itu to divide
> root of ides?
> > > *H1neun nine, nurpH nineI propose a voiced lateral affricate here. In PIE it becomes *dH and
> -r is from where? Some type of suffix meaning what?
> . . .
> > > *dHeu to pass away, lup to have lived, to die
> So Etruscan did the /d/ > /l/ thing? --which I've seen
> on a website as attributed to Sabellic
> > > *yeu youth, hus childNot exactly. I reconstruct /? ?h kx x x_w W G h/. Etr loses /? h x/
> Etruscan kept its laryngeals or what?
> . . .In this case it comes from /G/. In non-initial position this became a
> > My reconstructions for each of the above are:
> > *?nu(G, m, n) nine The reconstruction in PIE is
> > complicated. It's
> > usually reconstructed with a final *n but some have
> > argued for a *m. t
> > might have been variable. The Greek from looks
> > compatible with a final
> > *H2. IMO final *H3 merged with final *H2, which
> > leaves open the
> > possibility of a final *H3. As we see in the root
> > for "to give"
> > non-initial PIE *H3 corresponds with Etr r. The pH
> > in Etr is
> > analogical from sempH.
> OK, how do we get from /H3/ > /r/ --what other
> languages do that?
> > *yus' child The loss of the ejective spirant isThis isn't really related to your previous question. The change is
> > regular in PIE as is
> > its merger with s in Etr (4 other cognates exist).
> > I'll grant that
> > this is the only example of *y~h. I've postulated
> > this as coming from
> > PIT *y, but there is another possibility. It may
> > come from PIT *xW (>
> > h in Etr) with an irregular PIE development of *xW >
> > *xJ by
> > dissimilation > *y.
> OK this answers my question above, sort of
> > Because PIE *dwo: is a dual formation. A dual ofI was just throwing out the idea for speculation. I think Etr tHu is
> > what? If we undualify
> > two we get one. Two ones are two. 1+1=2, does it
> > not?
> You're gonna hafta do better than that. Think along
> the lines of *sem- "one" but also "whole" whence
> English same, sum, etc. The dual of "whole' would be
> "2". But make it more sophisticated than my
> suggestion. And yes, you will hafta find a word like
> *dwo- meaning "one, whole, same, sum, total, etc."