From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:44 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA
--- In email@example.com, "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
This suggests to me that the distinction was non-phonemic.
Well, I guess my little essay did not make much of an impression on you.
> You go from speculative, unsubstantiated, and unlikely leap to another.
> *H2 -> *H3 ???
Only in word final position.
Is a girl only pregnant in final position?
> I am not disvaluing your O but for your opinion to mean much, you
> 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.
Your first mistake is to come up with ideas about IT _before_ looking into
You will not find a person on this list, some very intelligent people, who
will agree that final *H3 is not possible. Only I would question it and then
not because of the final position but for its coloring property: final *H,
Understandable _if_ it happens.
> Secondly, you have not established that PIE *do:- and <tur> are
> 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.
Ah, Philosophy 101.
We do not "posit" in linguistics.
Speaking of *H3, would that not be final in PIE *do:- ?
Assuming the PIE word originally had an -*r doe one thing: it makes *H3 >
<r> into an unsupported musing.
And finally, are you saying PIE *H3 > Etruscan <r> - Etruscan is derived
> And, if you want to ignore Etruscan -ph, fine, but why? is it justified?
When did I ignore -pH?
Where did you address it?
> *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?
> 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.
The element *dh in PIE has reflexive applications - where is the reflexive
application in Etruscan - or the application in Afrasian?
> *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.
Prenasalized stops for PIT? OK. How about 4 or 5 examples?
A aspirated fricative such as I reconstruct for PL is only a convenient
_symbol_ to account for two major phenomena in derived languages: in PIE, to
account for some *sV: where a laryngeal is unlikely; and in Afrasian, to
account for voiced <z> and unvoiced <s> fricatives.
> *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.
You wrote "the ejective spirant ... in PIE" just above.
Possibilities are not probabilities. Anything is possible.
> 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
They've done untold damage long range linguistics.
That is your callow opinion.
> 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.