> 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.Only in word final position.
> *H2 -> *H3 ???
> I am not disvaluing your O but for your opinion to mean much, youhave to
> have reasons to hold it. Here, I presume, you are making an ad hocNot at all. I had come up with the idea before looking into the
> assumption to enable this single comparison to be made.
> Secondly, you have not established that PIE *do:- and <tur> arerelated, let
> alone cognate.rather
> 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?
> ***on the
> *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>?
> strength of difference ablative and genitive case endings?This equivalence is incorrect. PIT *dl > PIE *dH, Etr l to be more
> Totally unconvincing.
> *amb&w to be, to grow (this one was used in error since the eu~uA prenasalized stop has also been proposed to explain the PIE ablative
> 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.
> ***Proto-Semitic had them. So did Akkadian.
> *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?
> Have you been enslaved by Greenberg and Ruhlen's look-alike methodology?They've done untold damage long range linguistics.
> If you ever accomplish half of what they did, you will be extremely
> I hope I am not putting a damper on your enthusiasm.Not at all. Etruscan is poorly understood but as our understanding