Re: Finnish KASKA

From: etherman23
Message: 54140
Date: 2008-02-25

--- In, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> Look at
> where I tried to establish that Etruscan <t> (but not <th>) - PIE *d.
> And I realize there is inconsistency in the spellings with aspirates
> non-aspirates.

This suggests to me that the distinction was non-phonemic.

> You go from speculative, unsubstantiated, and unlikely leap to another.
> *H2 -> *H3 ???

Only in word final position.

> I am not disvaluing your O but for your opinion to mean much, you
have to
> have reasons to hold it. Here, I presume, you are making an ad hoc
> assumption to enable this single comparison to be made.

Not at all. I had come up with the idea before looking into the
Indo-Tyrrhenian hypothesis. The very existence of word final *H3 is in
doubt and unsubstantiated. Word final devoicing is common
crosslingually which would make *H3 > *H2 perfectly understandable.

> Secondly, you have not established that PIE *do:- and <tur> are
related, let
> alone cognate.
> Perhaps they are if Greeks bear "gifts" but this could be a loan, and
> certainly an <r> in Greek does not support *H3 -> Etruscan <r> but
> PIE *r = Etruscan <r>.

Positing an /r/ would strengthen the case for cognancy.

> And, if you want to ignore Etruscan -ph, fine, but why? is it justified?

When did I ignore -pH?

> ***
> *dlu to die The origin of the Etr p is unclear, however the dH~l
> correspondence is also likely found in the PIE ablative *-d (< *dH#)
> Etr genitive -la.
> ***
> More ad hoc. Utterly unbelievable! And now PIE *dh = Etruscan <l>?
on the
> strength of difference ablative and genitive case endings?
> Totally unconvincing.

This equivalence is incorrect. PIT *dl > PIE *dH, Etr l to be more
specific. Note also that Ehret reconstructs a PAA *-dl suffix which
forms the middle voice and which has left reflexes in the PIE middle
voice verbal paradigm. Additionally Szemerenyi cites Shields as
proposing the ablative *d from *dH.

> *amb&w to be, to grow (this one was used in error since the eu~u
> correspondence has a different origin) Loss of initial /a/ is regular
> in PIE as is the loss of /&/ in Etr. The *mb is a prenasalized stop.
> ***
> No one has even plausibly identified pre-nasalized stops for PIE or
> Nostratic or Etruscan.
> Without it, the 'comparison' is incomparably flawed.

A prenasalized stop has also been proposed to explain the PIE ablative
plural (though I don't personally subscribe to this theory. I'm not,
however, suggesting a prenasalized stop for PIE or Etruscan, only PIT.
I've not looked into the possibility of a Nostratic *mb yet. I also
note in passing that you're the only researcher who I've seen
reconstruct aspirated fricatives, but that doesn't mean that you're wrong.

> ***
> *yus' child The loss of the ejective spirant 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.
> > ***
> ***
> Ejective spirants? in what language?

Proto-Semitic had them. So did Akkadian.

> Have you been enslaved by Greenberg and Ruhlen's look-alike methodology?
> ***
> If you ever accomplish half of what they did, you will be extremely
> fortunate.

They've done untold damage long range linguistics.

> I hope I am not putting a damper on your enthusiasm.

Not at all. Etruscan is poorly understood but as our understanding
increases I recognize that my comparisons will either be tossed out,
revised or validated.