Markus Odegardus scribit:
>Now. I have read learned speculations (and this is exactly what they >are
>labelled as) that Tyhrrenian might be IE's closest relative (as >the
>Indo-Tyrrhenian family), with Uralic being slightly more >distant.
Speculations they are not. For instance, the Etruscan genitive has both -s
and -l.
Larth-al "Larth's" (genitive)
Larth-al-isa "that of Larth's" (double genitive)
These two suffixes are both found in Anatolian, undeniably linked to the IE
development of adjectival suffixes (cf. Greek mega-lo- "big").
On the other hand, Etruscan is clearly not IE when taking into account the
first person singular /mi/ (nominative) and /mi-ni/ (accusative) whose
formation looks more like Uralic than IE. However note this pronominal
accusative in /-ni/ which bears some similarity to an IE oblique formation
*yus-me- "you (pl)". (Just a thought.)
The numbers are vastly different although some relationships still exist
with the IE numbers:
1 thu
2 zal (IE *dwe- + -l, adjectival formant)
3 ci
4 huth (IE *kwetweres)
5 mach (IE *megh- "big")
6 s'a (Semitish "six")
7 semph (Semitish feminine form of "seven")
8 cezp (*ci-z + pi "at,in,through")
- meaning "three alongside (five)"
9 nurph (IE *neun + pi "at,in,through")
- compare Etruscan pi to IE *bhi
10 s'ar (Semitish loan)
Speculative? Don't think so.
>As for Greece, my own view is it was fundamentally non-IE in >character
>until the advent of chariot warfare (after 2000 BCE).
In my view, Greece circa 3,000+ BCE was probably a mixture of predominantly
Tyrrhenian and the more ancient "Semitish" languages that had been hangin'
around from the agricultural expansion in 6,000 BCE. This Pelasgia could
very well be Tyrrhenian, making it more correct to call them IndoEtruscan or
IndoTyrrhenian than IE proper. This part is highly speculative though and I
don't know much about this "Pelasgian" scandal.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________